(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor


      STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail

      road Signalmen on the former New York Central Railroad

      Company-Lines West of Buffalo (now Penn Central Transportation Company):


      On behalf of Signal Maintainers N. J. Brown and J. Hillman for trio and one-quarter (2'k) hours each at the punitive rate as penalty time for work performed off their seniority district on March 6, 1970, at the scene of a derailment at or in the vicinity of E. 34th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.


      OPINION OF BOARD: In its Submission, the Organization asserted that the Car

      rier violated Rule 24 (separate seniority districts) by

      requiring two employees to work off of their assigned territory and seniority

      district.


      Among other defenses, the Carrier urges a dismissal because the Organization did not cite (during th article of the agreement in support of the claim. We find the position of the Carrier well taken and we dispose of the claim without reaching the merits.


      On the property, the Carrier repeatedly cited two portions of the agreement as justification for its actions, but the Organization insisted that said Rules were not applicable. Approximately nine months prior to the Organization's notification o advised:


                  "Yet no article of the Agreement is cited by the Organization in support of the claim."


      In direct reply to the letter containing the above-cited quotation, the Organization repeated its request for penalty payment because Claimants were required to perform work off of their home seniority district, but again failed to cite the portion of the agreement relied upon.


              As this Referee stated in Award No. 19855:


i
                    Award Number 19975 Page 2

                    Docket Number SG-19558


        "It appears rather obvious that when a Carrier specifically advises the Organization that it has failed to identify the rule or rules alleged to have been violated, the Organization is obliged to advise the Carrier of th it seeks redress."


It is well settled that a failure to assert a specific rule violation while the matter is handle case and the claim must be dismissed out of hand. See Award of this Referee in Docket No. CL-19841, citing Awards 14754 (House), 13283 (House), 13741 (Dorsey), 14118 (Harr), 14772 (Dorsey) and 19773 (Ritter). A specific citation in the Submission doe 18964 (Dugan), 13741 (Dorsey) and 15835 (Ives).

 Inasmuch as the claim is disposed of on the procedural grounds noted above, no determination is made concerning other issues raised by the parties.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 the claim be dismissed.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: I~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.