the claim by asserting that he had no knowledge that Towle or Silk acted as alleged, the Organization provided to the Carrier on November 11, 1995 a statement from Conductor Patrick Walsh that on the day in question when there were no Clerks working Supervisor Towle ". . . arrived and posted the 105 North Track, which was out pick-up." The Carrier continued to deny the claim stating that it could neither confirm nor deny the allegations made in the note of November 11, 1995.
The Carrier contends that the claim is procedurally flawed either because the Organization improperly identified the Claimant in its filing before this Board or because the claim insufficiently alleges facts upon which a claim can be brought and resolved. The Organization on the other hand asserts that the claim is procedurally sound and that it is supported on the merits as well.
The first argument raised by the Carrier is that in its filing before this Board the Organization did not identify either the Claimant or the Rule upon which the claim is based despite the fact that it did when the claim was filed and processed on the property. Accordingly, the Carrier moves that the claim should be dismissed. In support of its argument the Carrier cites Third Division Award 31381. We disagree with the Carrier's argument on this point. First, it is clear from the initial filing of the claim and the continued processing up to and including the arguments before this Board that the Carrier was well aware of the alleged facts and contentions that had been made on the property as well as the arguments made before this Board. Thus, unlike the situation in Award 31381, the Carrier was not prejudiced nor was it faced with new facts or arguments.
The second argument raised by the Carrier however merits closer attention. On this point the only evidence supported by the Organization in support of the claim is the statement of Conductor Walsh in which he alleges that Supervisors "posted the 105 North Track, which was our pick-up." (Emphasis Supplied) Carrier contends that there is no basis in the record for determining just what is meant by "posting" the track, noting that if it means preparing a switch list, and if the evidence shows that such action was taken by management, a contract violation would be made out. However, the only reference in the record to preparing switch lists, as well as other work allegedly reserved to the bargaining unit, is in the Statement of Claim. Thus, because the Organization, as it concedes, bears the burden of proof of establishing that the work in question is reserved to it under the General Scope Rule the statement of Conductor Walsh is insufficient to carry that burden. Accordingly, the claim insufficiently states and the - Form 1 Award No. 32948