NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJDSTt~^,NT HOARD
THIRD DVISION Docket Number CL-23017
George S. Roukis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station _%ployes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMM OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-8848) that:
1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when it
permitted o' required an employee not covered by the scope of the clerical
agreement to perform work which, by history, custom, practice and tradition,
has been performed by storehelpers.
2. Account Carrier's violation of Rules 1, 44, 48 and other
related rules of the clerical agreement, Carrier shall be required to compensate the senior qualifie
Room in Springfield, Missouri, for three hours' pay at the rate of the
Storehelper's position for Tuesday, July 18, 1978.
OPINION OF BOARD: Before proceeding to a discussion of the primary issue
before this Board, namely, whether the purported
Claimant could be readily identified, we will dispose of the procedural
arguments raised by Carrier. Careful review of the on situs correspondence
does not reveal that the employes' exhibits B and C were specifically dis
cussed ox handled on the property, as per the explicit requirements of
Circular 1. Thus, they are not properly before this Division. Similarly,
we do not find that (terrier failed to deny in timely fashion the Organiza
tion's claim since this line of argument was abandoned in the Organization's
May 14, 1979 submission.
We recognize, of course, the diversity of Board decisions via
the question, "what constitutes a readily identifiable Claimant", but we
believe the Organization's averments and supportive citations possesses
the most persuasive merit. In Third Division Award 11732, which Carrier
cites as the controlling Award in setting forth the standards by which
a Claimant can be readily ascertained and identified, this Board held in
pertinent part that:
Award Number 23062 Page 2
Docket Number CL-23017
"A mere assertion by a petitioner that a Carrier
gives the names of the employees involved from
its records has no probative value. When a
Carrier avers that the claim as presented does
not satisfy the test., then a petitioner has the
burden to prove., by evidence in the record, that
identity of the employee(s) involved is now known
to Carrier; conversly the defense asserted by
Carrier is sham and frivolous."
But the fact specifics were patently distinguishable. cited "claims for unnamed ble. The
employees. It was vague, without spec-
ification and the Board's determination was manifestly correct under
the circumstances. In the instant disputes the Organization identified
the senior qualifieds available storehelper in the General Store Room
in Springfield. Missouri. In essence, it provided a definable focus.
In Third Division Award 14672, which we find more conceptually relevant
with this claim.. we stated in pertinent part that:
"We have frequently heretofore held that the
name of the employee on behalf of whom a
claim is presented,, is not essential to
the proper presentation of a claim: as long
as the claim described the Claimants so that they
can be readily identified, the claim is made
on behalf of the particular employees as 'Each
Group 14 employee assigned to the Equipment
Repair Shop on January 24 and 25, 1961.'
Carrier should have had no difficulty in
identifying them by an examination of its
records."
We find this holding more closely approximates the Organization's position,
especially where as in Third Division Award 10379, we also held by definition
Carrier's obligation to maintain seniority records. Notwithstanding.. the
admitted difficulties in adjudicating this genre of disputes., the record
sufficiently establishes that the Organization met the "particularity" as
delineated in Third Division Award 11732. We will sustain the claim.
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;
Award Number 23062 page
Docket Number CL-23017
That the Carrier and the Employer involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employer 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 Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTST: ~.
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, 211inois, this 14th day of November 1980.