impossible to get Mr. Snodgrass to Des Moines to perform this work, inasmuch as he completed his duties at Fort Worth at 7 P. M. on Friday, February 10, 1956.

On February 11, 1956, extra printer-operator Meliza was released at El Reno, where he had filled in due to a death in the family of Operator McDougall. Meliza was transferred to Des Moines to protect Mrs. Smith's vacancy commencing February 13, 1956 and Mrs. Davidson was released.

Inasmuch as no qualified printer-operator was available for service at Des Moines, on the days in question, the Carrier, in order to protect its service, temporarily employed Mrs. Davidson. The claim is without merit and should be denied.

It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the organization's representatives and by this reference is made a part hereof.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On Monday January 30, 1956, Barbara J. Smith, the regularly assigned "Printer Operator" in the Relay office of the Carrier at Des Moines, was absent due to illness. During the first week of her absence, the temporary vacancy was filled by using other employes in the office on their respective rest days, no extra printer operators being available.

During the second week, the Carrier used a Mrs. Davidson to fill the vacancy. Mrs. Davidson was not an employe of the Carrier. She did not hold seniority in any capacity, and never at any time completed an application for employment with the Carrier. At the end of her one week of work, she returned from whence she came.

Beginning on Monday, February 13, the third week of the vacancy, the Carrier filled the position using an extra Printer Operator, a bona fide employe with seniority under the Telegraphers Agreement.

The organization filed a claim for the senior idle telegrapher, in its relay division, a day's pay for eight hours, for each day of the violation.

There is little question but there was a violation of the Agreement, and the case is not seriously argued on the merits in the submission by the Carrier, but many alleged procedural defects are raised.

Carrier argued that under the mandatory provision of Article V Section 1(a) the Organization was obligated to file this claim in the name of a specific Claimant.

The claim in this case was filed in the name of the senior "idle telegrapher in its relay Division." On April 26, 1956, the General Chairman wrote the Manager of Personnel, listing the names of the Claimants. This very question has been before this Division on many occasions. We quote from a few of the Awards.

Award - 9333:

. . Carrier maintains that we are precluded from considering the merits and that the claim must be dismissed since it failed to name the Claimants and therefore is not in compliance with the requirements of Article V, Section 1 (a) of the 1954 National Agreement. This contention was not raised on the property and in any event, in this Referee's opinion, lacks merit since the identity of each of the claimants, though not specifically mentioned, is readily ascertainable. See Awards 8526 and 9248."

Award - 9248 had this to say - quote:

"At the outset the Carrier contends we ought to dismiss this claim because, it argues, the claims is for an unnamed Claimant and therefore does not meet the requirements of the time limit rule in the Agreement. The time limit rule provides, among other things, that all claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved, and that the initial claim in this case did not name a particular Claimant. This procedural matter has been raised in a great number of decided cases. Some decisions hold that the claimants must be specifically named, while others hold that the claimants need not be specifically named so long as they are easily and clearly identifiable. We think this latter view more properly effectuates the spirit and intent of collectively bargained agreements as well as the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. We believe the Carrier's contention that this claim is not sufficiently specific to be considered is without merit."

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That there was a violation of the Agreement.

AWARD