(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
 Pacific Railroad Company for eight (8) hours penalty time per day per five-day
 week, beginning February 2, 1970 and continuing until such time as Carrier
 complies with provisions of Rule 65 of the Signalmen's Agreement and properly
 bulletins Second Shift Maintainer position at Retarder Classification Yards,
 Bensenville, I11., account Carrier improperly filling this position by appoint
 ment and in violation of Rules 65 and 66(a). /Carrier's File: Case No. F-1069/

 OPINION OF BOARD: A Second Shift Maintainer position was created and bulle
 tined for bid in the Southern District on May 17, 1968.
 Wednesday and Thursday were designated as rest days. No one bid for the posi
 tion. Thereafter, the same position was bulletined in the Northern Seniority
 District and, again, no one bid.

 Almost one year later (May 14, 1969) the same position was bulletined for bid in the Southern District, however, the rest days were changed to Saturday and Sunday. On May bulletined in the Northern Seniority District in 1969.

 On February 2, 1970, the Carrier appointed an individual who had been hired and trained for the job.

 The Organization claims an Agreement violation, stating that the position should have again been bulletined for bid prior to the 1970 appointment and that the Carrier was required to bulletin the position in the Northern Seniority District in 1969 after the rest days were changed.

 The Carrier argues that the Organization has failed to comply with Article V, Section 1(a) of the August, 1954 Agreement because the claim fails to identify the Claimants. If this position is well taken, the Board must deny the claim without a consideration of the merits. See Award 11372 (Dorsey).

 The Board is fully cognizant of its responsibility to rule on the merits of each individual case whenever possible, and we are always reluctant to reach a decision on the basis of a procedural defect. However, in this case, the Board suffers from the same inability to identify the appropriate Claimant as described by Carrier and feels that the dispute must be disposed of on procedural ground


The Board has thoroughly reviewed precedent Awards cited by the parties, and notes that it is not necessary to specifically name the employee in the claim, if he is by the Carrier without further evidence or if his identity is ascertainable without undue difficulty. See Awards 9205 (Stone), 9248 (Schedler), 9333 (Weston), and 10576 (LaBelle). See also Awards 10052 (Dugan), 10238 (Gray), 10426 (Rock), 10871 (Hall), 19113 (Dorsey), 18640 (Rimer), and 17195 (Meyers).

 On the other hand, the Organization may not place a burden of guesswork on the Board, so as to requi Award 17740 (McCandless)). The identity of the Claimant must be described with particularity so as to make identity known under the prevailing circumstances. Award 11372 (Dor
In its Submission, the Organization concedes that the General Chairman could not know who to designa failed to bulletin the position properly and, thus, eligible employees were denied an opportunity to bid. Moreover, during the handling on the property, the Organization conceded that it did not know of anyone interested in bidding on the second trick maintainer position in question.

 We are unable to find from the claim, or related documents, the identity of any individual (with a sufficient degree of certainty) so as to sustain the claim. This is not to say that the Board would condone a Carrier action which placed the
regard, however the record here does not suggest any such result. The Organization was aware in May no qualified bidders." The record fails to demnstrate that, at that point in time, the Organization raised any issue concerning a bulletin distribution in the Northern District. Moreover, it would appear incumbent upon the Organization to produce some desired the position in early 1970. We may not assume that some unidentified employee may have desir have required a specific affirmative action on the employee's part. Absent any indication of record that anyone desired the position, we find that the claim is lacking in specifics necessary to identify Claimants. Accordingly, it does not comply with Article V, Section 1(a) of the August, 1954 Agreement and must be dismiss
        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

          Award Number 20054 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-19536


the dispute involved herein; and

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the claim is dismissed for reasons stated in the Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1973.