Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28922
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28872
 91-3-89-3-272
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) - ( Northeast Corridor

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, on September 7, 1987, it advertised two (2) 16 tool tamper operator positions under Numbers 73 and 74ACY-0987, without making
(2) The appeal as presented by District Chairman W. K. Manning on January 12, 1988 to Assistant Chief Engineer J. J. Cunningham shall be allowed as presented because said appeal was not disallowed by Assistant Chief Engineer Cunningham in accord
(3) As a consequence of either/or both Part (1) and/or Part (2) hereof, the '... two (2) senior, qualified, employees possessing Southern District EWE seniority who are not working positions paying the EWE 'A' rate and who would be eligible to make application for a contract tamper position advertised pursuant to the May all time worked by the employes assigned to the above-described positions at the EWE 'A' rate of pay including the $.55 per hour incentive provided for 'contract' tamper operator positions."

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
 Form 1 Award No. 28922
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28872
 91-3-89-3-272

 On July 13, 1987, the Carrier advertised two Engineer Work Equipment - "A" Class (EWE-A) Tamper Operator positions in connection with its Atlantic City Line. There were no qualified applicants. On September 7, 1987, the same positions were again bulletined. At a grievance meeting on September 24, 1987, the Organization raised the contention that the positions should have been advertised as "contract" positions under the Tamper Agreement of May 21, 1979. The reply given by the Carrier Representative at the September 24 meeting was that "There is n do not feel it is necessary to contract someone for this project."

 Thereafter, the Organization initiated two Claims on October 22, 1987. The Claim for consideration here was directed to the Atlantic City Project Manager (not the correct individual for this purpose) on behalf of:

Although not the proper individual to receive the Claim, the Project Manager nevertheless replied, denying the Claim. Thereaf...r, the Claim was timely appealed to the Assistant Chief Engineer, and the .-;anization seeks to have the Claim sustained on the basis (among other reason. that the Carrier failed to meet the time limits for such reply, pursuant tj Rule 64.

 There is, however, a complication. Also on October 22, 1987 (the same date as the Claim described above), the Organization filed a virtually identical Claim with the Assistant Chief Engineer, who is supposed to receive appeals but not initial Claims. Nevertheless, the Assistant Chief Engineer replied to the Claim. It was further progressed and answered by the DirectorLabor Relations, who obj and to the failure to direct the initial Claim to the proper individual. It must be noted that the Claim initiated with the Assistant Chief Engineer is not before the Board for resolution.

 Returning now to the Claim at hand, the Board cannot accept the Organization's view that the Cla
First, the Carrier raises an objection that the Claim does not specify particular Claimants, but The Board is fully cognizant that there are situations where the naming of a particular Claimant may not be required, particularly where necessary information is in the singular here. There is simply no showing that there were employees who may have responded to the advertiseme have been qualified. It is only reasonable that the Organization be required to specify which particular employees were adversely affected and under what circumstances. The Claim must therefore be found improperly initiated. As stated in Third Division Award 28596:
 Form 1 Award No. 28922
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28872
 91-3-89-3-272
 "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 that the Carrier can readily identify
 same. (See 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 been
 violated and the date the alleged violation commenced,
 it is not at all clear who was aggrieved."

 Thus, the Carrier's later failure to respond to the appeal is without significance, in view of the Claim's initial deficiency.

 It is noted, however, that the Claim also seeks to have the position "advertised and/or readvertised." This leads to the second reason for finding the Claim deficient. This request as to re-advertisement is the sole burden of the second October 22, 1987 Claim, discussed above. This Claim is entirely duplicative of the second Claim, which was fully developed on its own through the Claim handling procedure. Thus, the dispute as to whether the positions should be re-advertised was in the hands of the parties in the second Claim and needs no resolution here.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: Z~S-t Gy~
      Nancy J~4er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1991.