George S. Roukis, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when, on December 21, and 22, 1974, Truck Driver P. E. Brown was not used to drive the truck used by
 Assistant Roadmaster 0. A. Cotton, Jr. to patrol and inspect track j
 fSystem File 1-12(107)/E-30+-18 E-30)

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Truck Driver P. E. Brown shall now be allowed 24 hours of pay at his time and one-half rate.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Board has carefully reviewed the specific charges
 raised by claimant in his petition to carrier and
 finds that the rule violations asserted therein particularly Rules 30(b)
 and 30(f) respectively were subsequently expanded in claimant's exparte
 submission to include Rule 1 (Scope), Rule 2 - Exceptions, Rule 8(a) and
 Rule 30(g). Admittedly, said modification represents a substantially
 changed petition in that the additional rule violations cited were never
 handled on the property pursuant to well established procedures.

 Moreover, mindful that claimant averred '.`or any other applicable rules of the October 1, 1973 agreement"in his original complaint, it would be well nigh impossible to ascertain with any degree of competence what rules were relevant to claimant's specific charges. This represents a
 shotgun approach.which is patently inconsistent with the bona fides of an,
 efficient and expeditious grievance resolution process. Third Division
 Award 21441 which dealt with a similar fact situation appears dispositive
 of the issue. Referee McBrearty's percep-cive articulation of
 the industry's institutionalized practice warrants reiteration "The j
 Employes have the responsibility and burden to cite the rules and agreement
 language relied upon during handling on the property. This, of course, is
 a fundamental due process right of the other party and 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." Conversly, assessing the pertinency of rules 30(b) and 30 (f)
 the Board finds that they were not supportive of petitioner's claim since '
 no other employe worked overtime or was called. Based on the record, we
 are compelled to issue a dismissal award.

                                                          I

                    Award Number 21774 Page 2

                    Docket Number Nb1-21717


        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

        The agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUS'IIT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1977.