THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5517) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On Monday, December 17. 1962, there was a temporary vacancy on position of Messenger, Dallas. Texas. The position is assigned to work 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday rest days.
Mr. M. M. Brand, with Group 1 seniority dating from September 3, 1954. was used to fill the vacancy. His assigned hours of Line Desk Clerk are 12 M. N. to 8:00 A. M., Friday through Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday rest days.
It will be noted that Mr. Whittington was working on Monday, December 17, 1962, 4:00 P. M. to 12:00 M. N., and was available, qualified and willing to work the vacancy, but was denied this right. It appears that Carrier instructed Mr. Brand to work continuously on through his assigned
In conclusion, Carrier asserts that there is no merit nor rule support for the Employe's claim, and Carrier, therefore, respectfully requests that the claim be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim was initiated on the property by a letter from the Employes' Division Chairman to the General Yardmaster, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, Dallas, Texas. We quote from this letter:
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' current Agreement December 17, 1962, when it failed to use Mr. C. B. Whittington on temporary vacancy of Messenger position.
This letter is reproduced in full at record page 12, and identified as Employes' Exhibit A. The entire correspondence on the property, as submitted by the Employes, includes Employes' Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and 1. This encompasses record pages 12 through 22.
Throughout the handling of this claim on the property the Employes alleged that the agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to use Mr. C. B. Whittington on temporary vacancy of Messenger position on December 17, 1962. At no time did the Employes point out what Rule or Rules of the Agreement had been violated.
"We are of the opinion that when, on the property, a claim is made stating that an agreement has been violated without specifying the rule(s) allegedly violated, and Carrier responds that it is not aware of any rule prohibiting the action complained of,'the burden shifts to the Organization to particularize the rule(s).
When a respondent denies a general allegation that the agreement has been violated for the given reason that it is not aware of any rule which supports the alleged violation, the movant, in the perfection of its case on the property, is put to supplying specifics. It is too late to supply the specifics, for the first time, in the Submission to this Board-this because: (1) it in effect raises new issues not the subject of conference on the property; and (2) it's the intent of the Act that issues in a dispute, before this Board, sball have been framed by the parties in conference on the property. 14118-10 7 78
The Carrier raised other reasons for denial of this claim. We need not consider the other reasons raised by the Carrier. It is apparent from the record that the Carrier raised the issue that the Employes failed to cite a violation of any particular rule(s) of the agreement. (See record pages 15 and 22.)
For the reasons above stated, we are unable to adjudicate the merits of the claim, and will dismiss the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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 upon the record made on the property we are unable to adjudicate the merits of the claim.