movement. In a speech before the 15th Constitutional Convention of the United Automobile Workers at Cleveland, Ohio, on March 29, 1955, President George Meany of the A. F. of L. made the following remarks.

"Then we want a movement that has the practical common sense to solve the internal problems which crop up in our daily lives, so that we can devote all of our energies to the purpose for which we are organized.

We've made some progress in this field. In fact, this was the basis for the merger agreement signed last month. We created an atmosphere where unions are now talking to one another about the common problems in the real old tradition of our movement, rather than competing with one another to see who can grab one another's members. We have got to have within this movement a system by which we can resolve these internal disputes and not waste our energy and our substance in trying to beat down one another, but rather to give all our energy and our talents to advancing the cause of those whom we represent." (Emphasis ours).

It cannot be said that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers shares the views of the president of .the A. F. of L., when petitioning organization progresses a claim of this nature against a carrier which has done nothing but live up to its collective bargaining agreements with all of its employes.

The carrier feels that the record proves beyond question of doubt that

1. The work involved of repairing the relays, amplifiers and decoding units, after removal from the locomotives, was properly allocated to the signalmen on the basis of its agreement.

2. The electricians have no right whatsoever, contractually or otherwise, to perform the work in question.

3. Safe and sound railroad operation, as well as the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, required the carrier to give this work to signalmen in accordance with their contract.

For these reasons, and under the mandate of the evidence produced herein, this claim must be denied in its entirety.

FINDINGS: The Second 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.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

System Federation No. 95 contends carrier is using employes, other than electricians, to perform the work of repairing and overhauling master relays, amplifiers and other similar work in connection with cab signals when, under its agreement with the electricians, they have the exclusive right thereto.

In 1950 carrier started a program of installing cab signals in all of its locomotives used in passenger service. Carrier had its electricians perform the work of installing this equipment in the cabs of the locomotives; thereafter inspect, test and maintain it; and, when necessary, remove and replace it. However, when any of the equipment was removed therefrom for repair

or overhauling carrier had this work performed by signalmen in its signal shop at Aurora, Illinois. The latter is the work here claimed for the electricians.

The difficulty seems to arise because of where these signals are located. However, we do not think that fact is conclusively controlling but what is more important is the use to which they are put. These signals continuously indicate conditions ahead which affect the movement of trains or engines and promptly indicate any change therein. They are used in conjunction with interlocking and block signals. They do not stop, slow down or exert any other effect automatically. They show wayside signals for the benefit of the enginemen, which is particularly important when visibility is poor. In other words they primarily perform signal functions. We think they are part of carrier's signal system and not an automatic train stop or control device or system. In view of that fact we do not think Rule 70 (a) of the parties' agreement specifically covers this work.

Since the classification of work rule covering electricians does not specifically set out the work here involved we must turn to other agreements on the property, and practice thereunder, to see whether or not this work belongs to the electricians for, in the preamble to the parties' agreement, it provides: "It is understood that this agreement shall apply to those who perform the work specified in this agreement * * *, and is not covered by other agreements in effect on March 15, 1944."

The record shows that signalmen employed in the signal shop at Aurora have for many years repaired signal relays, amplifiers and decoding units of the same type as here involved in connection with C.T.C. and automatic block signal systems. Since we find the cab signals to be a part of carrier's signal system we find, in view of the foregoing, that what is here claimed for the electricians is not their work.

AWARD