Form l
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7774
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7555-T
 2-SCL-EW-'78

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.

 System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
 Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1.0.
 (Electrical Workers)

 Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated the




2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate


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 dis.Imte 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.

This claim is based on the alleged iznpropex assignment of work belonging to the Comzrmnications r.`aintainers to a Signal Employee. Third party notice of the claim was given by the Division to the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, who filed their response herein.

 The specific work in question is the changing out of a portable radio in a journal defect detector at Carson, Virginia. It is the position of the claimant that the work is specifically covered by the ComLmunication Employees' Classification of ~~;ork rule 1(a) in that said rule covers "installing" and "maintaining11, "W reless voice comzrnznicavion equipment". Rule 29(a) restricts the performance of work covered in Rule 1 to Communicai;ions Maintainers.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 777+
 Docket No. 7555-T
 2-SCL-EW-'78

 Carrier takes the position that the work is not reserved to either craft and that it was therefor acting within its prerogative and in accordance with past practice in assigning the work to a signal employe.

 There is no question but the wireless radio device in question transmits a voice communication. we axe asked, however, to find that because a radio is part of a journal defect detector it loses its character as a .piece of wireless voice corrr;mnication equipment. This we cannot do. The rule is clear. The Carrier's argument with respect to .past practice is not applicable due to the specificity of the rule. The assignment of the work in question to one not covered by the Communication 1,1.',aintainers agreement is a violation of said aoxeemen°t.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

PTATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP-ENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division




Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December, 1978.
 ' ~~ ~~i




This Award is palpably erroneous, replete with errors in fact and logic.
 On this Carrier journal defect detectors, in addition to the features of ordinary detectors have an ingenious feature that emits a pre-recorded voice signal upon detection of a journal defect. It is unrefuted in the record that historically when the pre-recorded voice transmitter is defective it is changed out in its entirety by signalmen and returned to the radio shop to be repaired by electricians. The error in fact is committed when the refe=ree- finds" that a: transmitter that emits a pre-recorded voice is "wireless voice communication equipwent"within the meaning of the agreement.
 The transmitter of a pre-recorded voice is not "communications" equipment for the simple matter it does not communicate it is only a sophisticated signal that acts as a supplement in an incidental manner to the other signaling functions of this unique journal defect detector. A two-way radio that carries live communications between two principles would be an example of "wireless voice equipment" as used in the Agreement. But this device is entirely different. It is undirectional and does not depend on a person to facilitate its signal function. Simply put - machines signal, people communicate.

 I
 The distinction between communication and signals in journal defect detectors was taken up in Second Division Award 57+0. It was stated:










Also see Awards 551, 5515, 5516, 5517, 5518, 5519 which established that
 a hot box detector is primarily a signal system.
 In addition the awards cited above uphold the-principle that
 the installation of signals have been historically reserved to Signalmen.,
 an additional point of fact ignored by the referee. Also see Second
 Division Award 6082.
 Installation of signals including the changing out of the traris
 matter portion of hot box detectors as well as the entire detector unit
 have, particularly on this property, historically have been performed by
 the Signalmen. The weight of this considerable past practice is simply
 ignored by this referee. Even if it could be said that this unique
 device is not a signal, the language of Ru7Q lA leaves much ambiguity
 as to its status as "wireless voice equipment". It is well settled
 where language is ambiguous past practice prevails.

 I
 It was clearly an error not to recognize the pre-recorded voice

 transmitter as a signal., or at least an incidental component of a signal device properly changed out by the Signalman who clearly and historically has had the right to install and change out journal defect detectors.

 We vigorously dissent,

(SK .,,r%uaot


G.H.Vernon

 Mason

 ZOO~

 B. K. Tuc r

 P. V. Varga