PARTIES ) The Delaware and Hudson Railroad Corporation
 TO Ties ) and'
 DISPUTE:) Brotherhood of Maintenance of ;'ay Employees

 QUESTION Contention of the Employes that all employes
 AT ISSUE: represented by the Brotherhood of .'-Iaintenance
 of Way Employes who have suffered wage loss
 or have been required to assume unnecessary
 expenses by reason of misapplication of Sedia
 tion Agreement dated February 7, 1965 and Agreed
 to-Interpretations dated November 24, 1965 be
 allowed a wage adjustment and reimbursement
 for unnecessary expenses incurred effective as
 of the initial date of such wage loss or initial
 incurring of expenses continuing until such time
 as Management of Delaware and Hudson Railroad
 Corporation properly applies the provisions of
 Mediation Agreement dated February 7, 1965.

 OPINION This claim seeks redress for unnamed and unidentified
 OF BOARD: employees "who have suffered wage loss or have been
 required to assume unnecessary expenses by reason of
 misapplication of Mediation Agreement dated February 7, 1905..."
 However, it has been well established, notably in the awards of
 the Third Division, that claims must be specific and claimants
 identifiable.

 The Employes' rationale for the blanket claim is that Carrier failed to supply necessary information. But Carrier did supply all that was required by the Agreement and the Interpretations when it provided lists of protected employees. Except "in individual cases" no other information on compensation is. required. This language in the interpretations demonstrates that there was no intent to permit the filing, handling and adjudication of a blanket claim, which did not involve particular employees and the allegation of specific violations of the Agreement.

 Blanket claims and fishing expeditions detract from a stable and rational labor-management relationship. They impede the normal handling of claims and grievances where specific employees make specific claims which are subject to investigation and adjudication on their merits.
                              Case No, E,rl-4-E f'

In the absence of any affirmative allegation whatsoever that any named or otherwise identified employees improperly sustained a loss under the Agreement, there is no basis upon which the blanket claim can be upheld.

                        AP7ARD


          Claim denied.


                        Muton Friedman, Referee


Washington, D. C May 9, 1969

                        -2-