NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
performed only about 2001o of the work which would have normally been performed by Section Foreman Matthes had he not been on vacation and this consisted primarily of patrolling the track of Section 11 three times per week (approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes per patrol) and making out the daily time for the 2 laborers regularly assigned to Section 11 (approximately 15-20 minutes per day). It should perhaps be explained that inasmuch as the two crews had been combined it was not necessary that their daily time be made out separately but instead it could and should have been combined also, however, the fact that it was not is immaterial.
There is attached as Carrier's Exhibit "A" copy of letter by Mr. S. W. Amour Assistant to Vice President, to Mr. J. G. James, General Chairman, under date of March 2, 1961.
OPINION OF BOARD: In this case each party contends that the case should be disposed of without consideration of its merits: Employes argue that failure of Carrier to notify Employes in writing sufficiently specifically of the reasons for disallowing the claim requires, under the terms of Section 1 (a) of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, that the claim be allowed as presented. Carrier argues that because the claim was never discussed in conference on the property as provided in the Act, it is improperly before the Board and should be dismissed; and that the claim should be dismissed as procedurally deficient because Employes on the property cited no specific rule or agreement as having been violated and those cited for the first time in Employes' Ex Parte Submission were not discussed on the property.
The record shows that Employes at no time on the property cited any specific rule as violated by Carrier's acts complained of (except, at the end, the procedural rule contained in Article V, Section 1 (a), which did not relate to the acts of Carrier giving rise to the original claim, but to Carrier's alleged omissions in answering that claim); that Carrier in its correspondence repeatedly pointed out to Employes that they had not alleged the violation of any specific rule or agreement without succeeding in eliciting from Employes such a citation. We have held in our Award 1394-Referee House, that the specifying on the property of the rule or rules alleged to have been violated is not an error barring consideration by us of the merits of a dispute, if the record shows that the issue was clearly joined on the property and the belated naming of the involved rule did not change or add to the dispute. This does not mean, however, that Employes may without peril to their case fail on the property to meet the challenge of Employer to name the rule or rules alleged to have been violated: Employer is entitled to clarity about the issue as posed by Employes before it can be required to argue about it in specific terms, and the burden is on Employes to make their case clear enough so that the discussion on the property may be to the point and, possibly, productive of agreement. In this case, because of the continued failure of Employes to meet the challenge of Employer to name the rules alleged to have been violated, while demanding of Employer more than a general denial that Employer had violated any provision of the Agreement, the record shows that the issue was not clearly joined on the property. Since we will dismiss the Claim for this reason without treating with its merits, we need not deal with the other arguments set forth above.