On July 6, 1996 the Organization filed claim CF005 alleging violation of the Agreement by the Carrier on June 10,1996 when it allegedly permitted employees other than members of the craft to inspect and repair cars at the Clifton Forge, Virginia, Transportation Yard. On September 6, 1996 the Organization wrote a letter to the Carrier which addresses appeal of a claim designated as a claim for June 11, not June 10, 1996. On September 6, 1996 the Organization continued handling of a claim on the property, which is designated as claim CF006, rather than claim CF005. On October 23, 1996 the Organization continued handling of a claim on the property by correspondence to the Director of Employee Relations which deals, once again, with claim CF005 and alleged a violation, which took place, again, on June 10, 1996. By June 10, 1997 the intermittent handling of what was originally either claim CF005 or CF006 had now become handling of claim(s) CF005 through CF008. The latter numeration of claims remains consistent through September 9, 1997 when the Organization stated that it was prepared to "...adjudicate the dispute(s) before the Second Division of the Adjustment Board ...."
A study of the record reveals that the Carrier also responded differentially to claims CF005, CF006 and ultimately to CF005-CF008 when handling the claims on the property and theoretically, at least, should share some responsibility for the mixed claims before the Board in this case. Nevertheless, the Organization as moving party has the burden of proof and the Board cannot reasonably respond to the parties' request for a ruling on intermingled claims. The claim must be dismissed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.