STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an agreement between the parties to this dispute bearing effective date of December 1, 1944 (reprinted March 1, 1951, including revisions). This agreement and all amendments thereto are involved, by reference, in this claim.
On or about July 1, 1953, Carrier commenced a radio communications system along its 100-mile stretch of main line through the Cascade Mountains on the Portland Division, extending between Eugene Yard and Crescent Lake, Oregon.
There is a train dispatcher's office located at Eugene Yard, where two dispatchers on each eight-hour shift control traffic around-the-clock throughout the section of track here involved . One train dispatcher controls movements from Eugene Yard as far as Oakridge, 46 miles south. The other dispatcher is responsible for traffic from Oakridge to Crescent Lake, a distance of approximately 54 miles.
case, to make such further answer as may be necessary in relation to all allegations and claims as may be advanced by the petitioner in such submission, which cannot be forecast by the carrier at this time and have not been answered in this, the carrier's initial submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: At the outset we are confronted with a contention by the Carrier that the claim presented to the Board is not the same claim that was handled on the property, and thus is not properly before us for consideration.
Questions of this nature have been raised in numerous prior awards. See, for example, Awards 5077 and 5502. We are of the opinion that isuch objections should not be lightly rejected where there appears to be some basis for their being raised. On the other hand they should not be accepted merely because they appear to be technically correct. As we said in Award 3256, ". . it was not intended by the Railway Labor Act that its administration should become super-technical and that the disposition of claims should become involved In intricate procedures having the effect of delaying rather than expediting the settlement of disputes."
With these thoughts in mind we have compared the Statement of Claim as submitted to the Board with the specific claims submitted to the Carrier and made the subject of the dispute. The dissimilarity is striking, and represents a substantial expansion of the claim prejudicial to the Carrier, unless there was a clear warning that the claim was meant to include incidents subsequent to those enumerated. A prolonged and diligent search of the record fails to reveal anything that could be said to put the Carrier on notice that a general claim, continuing into the future, was intended.
Therefore, we find that the claim here presented has not been handled on the property as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Hence the claim must be dismissed.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and