(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company



1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it arbitrarily tra
2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe M. Quitney for eight (8) hours per day at the rate of Caller-Clerk Position 28080 for May 10, 1971 and for all subsequent days until the violation is corrected; compensation to be determined
OPINION OF BOARD: We have a threshhold question of whether the claim presented
here is procedurally correct, inasmuch as the Carrier con
tends in its Reply Brief that the instant claim represents an entirely new posi
tion as compared to the claim advanced on the property.

The substance of the claim made on the property is found in the following letter written by Clai of May 10, 1972:





In subsequent handling on the property the above letter was forwarded to a Carrier Officer as an appeal procedure along with the following cover letter written by the General Chairman:



        "Please give consideration to the claim of employe M. Quitney copy of which is attached and referred to you by the System Committee of the Brotherhood in her behalf on appeal from the decision rendered by Assistant Master Mechanic, Mr. R. A. Hargis."


The foregoing shows that the rules mentioned on the property were Rules 12 and 22 (f). However, in the claim presented to the Board, Rules 12 and 22 (f) are not mentioned and instead the claim is now predicated on Carrier's violation of Rules 2(a), (f), 3 (a), 6 (a) and 57. On these facts there can be no doubt that the claim as presented to the Board is not the same claim that was handled on the property and, consequently, there is no proper claim before the Board for its consideration. The employees have the responsibility and burden to cite the rules and agreement language relied upon during handling on the property. This, of cours where the rules are not cited, discussed, or in some way stated on the property, the omitted rules cannot be supplied for the first time in the submission of claim to this Board. We conclude therefore that the claim as stated is not properly before the Board and, accordingly, we shall issue a dismissal Award. For similar rulings see Award Nos. 15835, 19857, 19858, 19902, and 19970.

        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 is dismissed in accord with Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        xecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1973.