Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28872
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-28960
 91-3-89-3-359
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Normand Petit PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "(1) The dismissal of Railroader N. Petit for allegedly being absent without authority from June 29 through July 7, 1988 was without just and sufficient cause, arbitrary violation of the Agreement.

 (2) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to afford the Claimant his right of appeal as set forth in Section VI. 'Discipline', following a hearing which was held on July 19, 1988.

 (3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in either Part (1) and/or Part (2) above, Mr. N. Petit shall be returned to his position with all seniority and benefits unimpaired and he shall be paid for all wage loss suffered."

 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union was advised of the pendency of this dispute and filed a Submission with the Division.
 Form 1 Award No. 28872
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-28960
 91-3-89-3-359
This is one more in a series of cases involving the same Carrier and its employees each of which has contained substantially the same jurisdictional and/or procedural al Division Awards 28726, 28727, 28767, 28768, 28791 and 28816. This case, however, contains one primary issue which was not present in any of the preceding cases, namely, there is absolutely no identification in this case file to indicate the craft or class of employees of which Claimant was a member. In each of the previous cases there was a clear or easily discernible identification of the craft or cl assigned at the time of the events which precipitated the action which was under review. Here, however, neither the Claimant nor the Carrier gives any clue whatsoever to the craft or class to which the Claimant was assigned at the time of the events which precipitated his termination from the service of the Carrier.

 The jurisdiction of this Board is clearly defineo oy both Section 3, First (h) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and by Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The Third Division of the Board is empowered "To have jurisdiction over disputes involving station, tower, and telegraph employees, train dispatchers, maintenance-of-way men, clerical employees, freight handlers, express, station, and store employees, signal men, sleeping-car conductors, sleeping-car porters, and maids and dining-car employees." From the record in this case it cannot be determined that Claimant was associated with a
While we continue to agree with and support the clear thinking logic as expressed in another case on this Carrier decided by First Division Award 24019, to wit:

we must, in this case, conclude that the Third Division of the Board does not have jurisdiction over the particular claim of this particular employee whose craft and class is unspecified. We therefore, dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction without addressing the merits thereof.


Form 1 Award No. 28872
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-28960
 91-3-89-3-359
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: ~// Ar
 , ~,~ /rte

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1991.