Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28596
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28162
 90-3-87-3-704
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it reduced the number of section laborers in the crew consisting of Section Crew Nos. 105 (Waukesha), 111 (shops Yard(), 112 (Oshkosh), 113 (Neenah), 118 (Stevens Point), 120 (Marshfield), 188 (Soo, Michigan), 148 (Chippewa Falls), 154 (Ladysmith), 210 (Barron), 137 (Ashland), 181 (Gladstone), 173 (Rhinelander) and 166 (Marquette) effective on March 14, 1986 (System File 8238/800-46-B-246).

 (2) The claim as presented by General Chairman G. Western on March 17, 1986 to Regional Engineer G. J. Guthrie shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not timely disallowed by General Manager-Engineering G. A. Nilsen (appealed to him on May 16, 1986) in accordance with Rule 13.

 (3) As a consequence of Parts (1) and/or (2) above, each section laborer affected by the force reductions described in Part (1) above and their successors as the senior furloughed laborers from the section crews enumerated in Part (1) hereof, shall be made whole for all straight time and overtime wage loss suffered and shall have all vacation, fringe benefits and other rights restored until this violation is corrected."

 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.
Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 28596
 Docket No. MW-28162
 90-3-87-3-704

 Claimants hold seniority as section laborers. On March 4, 1986, the Organization contends that Carrier reduced the normal force allowance to provide off-track utility t 1985 Memorandum of Understanding between the parties which states in pertinent part as follows:

"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

REGARDING ASSIGNMENTS OF OFF-TRACK

UTILITY TRACTORS


EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1985

 Each Off-track Utility Tractor Operator's position will be assigned a headquarters point at an existing section crew location and such positions will be assigned to the senior, qualified, available Pmuloye in the section crew at the crew location where the tractor is headquartered. An employe working as a tractor operator may be assigned to perform sectionman's work when not operating the tractor and wil compensated under Rule 31, Composite Service.

 Line crews will not be reduced below the crew consists listed in Appendix F and yard crews will reduced below their normal force allowance to provide a tractor operator when the tractor operator is entitled to more than one full day's pay at the trac operator's rate under Rule 31, Composite Service."

 The Organization further contends that the Claim should be allowed as presented on procedural grounds, since Carrier did not timely respond to the appeal of the Claim as required by Rule 13.

 Carrier opposes the Claim on several grounds. First, it objects to the Claim because it is vague, indefinite and uncertain. Second, on the merits, Carrier asserts that the Organization never established that there was a Rule violation. The Organization has the burden of substantiating its Claim, Carrier observes, and in this case, it did not meet that burden.

 We have closely examined the record in the instant Claim and must conclude that Carrier is correct that the Claim is barred on procedural grounds. We are cognizant of those prior cases in which the Board has held that Claimants need not be specifically named in a claim in order for the claim to be sufficient, but that the aggrieved must be described with sufficient particularity so th e.g., Third Division Award 11372.) It is the organization's burden, however, to prove that the identity of the aggrieved can be readily ascertained by the Carrier. In this case, while the Claim describes an incident, cites an Agreement alleged to have bee to "... each section laborer affected by the force reductions and their successors as the senior furloug .... In the Organization's first appeal, the General Chairman contrarily noted:
 Form 1 Award No. 28596
 Page 3. Docket No. MW-28162

Carrier has stressed that it is unable to ascertain from the above statements which employees were aggrieved, and given the vague and conflicting references by the Organization, we concur that the identity of the Claimants cannot be readily ascertained. The Claim will be dismissed on that basis.

        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
                  0000,

      ~ '

      Nancy J.ip(fer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1990.