The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
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 employe 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.
Before the Board can give consideration to any of the arguments and contentions raised by the parties relative to the merits, or lack thereof, of this case, we must first address a fundamental deficiency which exists in this case which neither party to the dispute has chosen to address throughout the entire on-property handling of the claim. Form 1 Award No. 30694
The Statement of Claim to the Board alleges that a violation of the rules agreement occurred on August 31, 1991. However, the organization's entire presentation on this claim - both during their on-property handling of the dispute as well as before the Board - deals with an alleged violation of the Rules Agreement which allegedly occurred on September 7, 1991.
The initial claims on this issue which were presented by the Organization on September 28, 1991, alleged as follows:
The same claim (with differences only in the escort's name) was presented separately for Claimants Ward, Gary, Walker and Breeden.
Carrier acknowledged receipt of the five (5) separate September 28, 1991, claim letters and denied each of the claims as follows:
Carrier's denial did not address the September 7, 1991, claim date as indicated in the initial claim letters.
When the organization appealed the five claims to the highest appeals officer, they quoted Carrier's reference to the work which had been performed on August 31, 1991, but persisted in appealing and progressing their claims for the same work which they alleged had been performed on September 7, 1991. They made no explanation for or amplification of the difference in claim/work dates.
Throughout the entire handling between the parties - which included at least two claims conferences - neither party addressed the variance of dates. Form 1 Award No. 30694
It is a fundamental tenet of claims presentation and progression that the petitioning party must prove every essential fact of a claim and must be specific especially in regard to the exact date of the alleged violation. For a claim to be "handled in the usual manner" as required by the Railway Labor Act, as amended, it is mandatory that the correct date(s) of the alleged violation be identified by the party initiating the claim. The Board has no authority to presume what the correct claim is.
In this case, there is a total unresolved disagreement between the parties relative to the proper claim date. The parties made no apparent attempt to reconcile this claim date variance. The Board cannot correct the irreconcilable difference on such a fundamental issue. Therefore, without expressing any opinion concerning the merits of the parties' contentions, we will dismiss this claim for failure of the petitioning party to establish a correct claim date.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimants not be made.