Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27645
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27659
 88-3-87-3-113
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated

On behalf of G. L. Eisner, 04581 Maintainer C. 6 S., with headquarters at Cola C. 6 S. building,
A. Claim that the Company violated the current Agreement between Consolidated Rail Corporation and Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, particularly APPENDIX 'P' Rule E. Evertts to clear switch trouble when 115 switch failed to reverse at C.P. Shocks, MP 45.4, Enola Branch and not G. L. Eisner who is the regular assigned Maintainer.

B. Claim that since G. L. Eisner, was not given the opportunity to perform the extra duty mentioned above, that he be paid (3) hours at the time and half rate of pay for his present position which is stated above." (Carrier file SD-2257)

 FINDINGS:

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

An employee other than the Claimant was called to perform repair on a switch at C. P. Shocks commencing at 12:15 A. M. on calendar day October 22, 1985. The Organization argues that the Claimant was the employee entitled to such work based on Appendix "P", Rule 6. The Claim, however, referred to work performed on October 21, 1985.
 Form 1 Award No. 27645
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27659
 88-3-87-3-113

 The Carrier's sole response on the property was that, since no such work was performed on October 21, 1985, the Claim was defective. The Organization demonstrated that time involved in the switch repair as overtime for his work day of October 21, 1985.

 It was well accepted that Claims must be accurate and specific in their allegations of Agreement violation in order to provide the Carrier with the proper opportunity to review the cited violations and respond thereto. In this instance, however, the Board finds the Carrier's defense insufficient. From the record, it is clear that the particular repair was identified, and the Carrier was aware of who performed the work. The employee performing the work reported it, as noted above, as part of his October 21, 1985, duty. The fact that the Claim failed to note that the work commenced 15 minutes after midnight October 21, 1985, is not a fatal flaw.

 Since the Carrier did not deny that the Claimant was the proper employee to call, the Claim stands on the Organization's position and will be sustained. In its submission, the Carrier disputes premium pay as the proper remedy. Since this was not raised on the property, the Board follows the general practice on this Division and will sustain the Claim on remedy as presented.




                              By Order of Third Division


Attest.
      Nancy er'- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of December 1988.