(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

. orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD A:4ard No. 6330
' SECOND DIVISION Docket No.-6143
. 2-B&O-EW-'72
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert G. Williams when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 30, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. _
Parties to DisRute: ( (Electrical Workers)

( The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes: .

1. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the controlling Shop Crafts' Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 28, 29, 125 and 126, governing Electrical Workers, as is applicable in those departments specified in the Scope Rule, when Signal Department employees were assigned to, and performed work accruing to Electrical Workers in the installation of an automatic ignition control and snow detector system on a gas switch heater at Alamont, Maryland.

2. That accordingly, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company be ordered to compensate the claimant electricians for a comparable amount of

( time worked by Signal Forces in making the switch heater installation

as indicated in the following schedule of claim.

Schedule of Claim:

I.D. No. 118198 - R. Bolyard - 152 hours at applicable pro rata rate I.D. No. 116425 - E. Spiker - 144 hours a t applicable pro rata rate I.D. No. 250246 - K. Boggs - 144 hours at applicable pro rata rate I.D. No. 11581 - F. Corley - 144 hours at applicable pro rata rate

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Form 1 Award No. 6330
Page 2 Docket No. 6143
2-B&0-EW;' 72

Since the Carrier's Signal Department employees and their duly authorized representative, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen., were given notice of this dispute and intervened in these proceedings the Carrier's contention that this Division has no authority to adjudicate this dispute is no longer a factor in this case.

This dispute involves the assignment of work on the installation of a remote control switch for the ignition system on gas-fired switch heaters at Altamont, Maryland. The switch heaters themselves were installed and piped by Sheet Metal Workers in the Maintenance of Way Department. Later, the remote control switch was installed by the Carrier's Signalmen. The Claimant Electricians in this case contend that this assignment of work violated Rule 125 of their agreement.

The Claimants contend that since Sheet Metal Workers installed the s-iitch heaters the Carrier admits that such work falls within the Shop Crafts' Agreement. One instance of a work assignment, however, does not establish a practice. In addition this instance involved Sheet Metal Workers and non-electrical type work. Such circumstances would not establish a practice for Electricians in any event.

It has been generally accepted in prior awards that Signalmen's work classification is based on a systems and facilities concept. If work is an integral part of the Signal system then it is Signalmen's work. In this case the installation of a remote control switch for switch heaters was designed as an integral part of the Carrier's signal system. Frozen switches interfere with the movement of trains and remote control switches on switch heater installations are a part of the signal system which prevents such traffic delays. Such work is properly assigned to Signalmen. See Second Division Awards 5897 and 6082.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division

Attest: .l..r.~,'i

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 7th day of July, 1972.