THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 JOINT COUNCIL DINING CAR EMPLOYEES LOCAL 370

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD

RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employes Local 370 on the property of New York, New Haven & Harford Railroad Company for and on behalf of Cook Marie D. Simms that she be reimbursed retroactively for moneys said claimant was compelled to spend for sleeping accommodations account Carrier's failure to provide same in violation of agreement.

 EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of December 28, 1956, Organization's General Chairman advised Carrier as follows:

    Mr. W. A. Duprey Supt. Dining Service New Haven Railroad So. Boston 27, Mass.


    Dear Sir:


    We are informed that carrier has made no provisions for sleeping quarters for Cook Marie D. Simms at Springfield, Massachusetts, and demanded for her classification under Rule 20.


    We request that carrier provide sleeping accommodations for this employe at that point, and reimburse her retroactively for money this employe was compelled to spend in order to get sleeping accommodations.


                    Very truly yours,


      . Dudley Washington

    General Chairman" cc: Mr. W. Chandler

      Miss Marie Simms


                  [7907

10201-6 795

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose between the Joint Council of Dining Car Employes and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, the Carrier.


The Claim was filed for and on behalf of Cook Marie D. Simms, who claimed that the carrier had failed to provide sleeping accommodations for her as provided in the agreement.


The run involved was between Sprinfield, Massachusetts and New York City and involved Trains 77-86.


The employe states that each member of the crew in question, with the exception of Cook Marie D. Simms, was provided with sleeping facilities at the Springfield, Massachusetts terminal. The carrier has challenged this and there is no evidence of record to support the employes' statement. In fact, the record does not show that sleeping accommodations were furnished for either male or female employes. In the instant case, unless the petitioner show proof of the claim and proves a definite violation of the agreement, there can be no alternative but to deny the claim. See Awards Nos. 9565; 9551; 6937; 8840; 8674; 8330 and 8124. It goes without saying that mere unsupported allegations such as made by the claimant, Marie D. Simms, do not constitute proof. See Awards Nos. 9783; 9261; 9222; 8065; and 6359.


This Board bas repeatedly held that vague, indefinite and ambiguous claims must be dismissed. We can find nothing in the record to sustain the position of the claimant in any respect. This Board would have no authority whatsoever to sustain the Award when the claim presented was so indefinite and ambiguous and where there was no evidence to show that there was a violation of Rule 20 or any other rule of the agreement. Therefore, the claim is without merit and is denied.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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


    That the Agreement was not violated.


                  AWARD


    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1961.