Form 1 NATI(NAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9277
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 iddition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties-to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
















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.

Complainant Organization, the Electrical Workers, IBEW, allege Carrier

improperly assigned work of its craft to employes of the Signalmen's craft. The

F orm 1 Award No. 9277
 Page 2 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-182

 disputed work involved reestablishing and rebuilding a pole line within the geographical boundaries between Maitland, Ohio and Glen Echo, Ohio. This territory falls within the Carrier's Cincinnati Division, Southern Region, which formerly was designated the Dayton Branch of the former Erie Lackawanna Railway.

 Complainant Organization asserts this claim arises from its serendipitous discovery that the subject work was being performed by a Signalmen Line Gang during the time the work was already in progress. By its estimation, Complainant Organization contends the project to restore the pole line, which had fallen in disrepair over a number of years due to abandonment in its use, had been underway for approximately two (2) months. When discovered on date of December 27, 1978, Complainant Organization contends the status of the project was as follows:

Complainant Organization insists that members of its craft belonging to the Communications Department Line Gang of the former Erie Lackawanna Railway had been assigned the work and, in fact, performed the original installation of the subject pole line.

 In support of its position that the disputed work belongs to members of its craft, Complainant Organization cites the following special rules contained in two former collective bargaining agreements between the Erie Railroad Company and the Communications Employees of the Communications and Signal Department effective May 1, 1956, as amended in the first instance and in the second instance between the Erie Railroad Company and certain employees of the Communications Department covering; (1) Communications Supervisors, (2) Communications Construction Foremen; and (3) Cooks, effective March 1, 1967, as amended. These applicable special rules respectively read as follows:





"Rule 1(g) Communications Constructionman-An employee assigned to install, repair, rebuild, dismantle, inspect, test and adjust Communications poles, lines, supports and equipment, and/or appurtenances overhead and underground, with or without specifications, plans or drawings and all or any other work generally recognized as the work of Communications Constructionmen."
 F orm 1
 Page 3

 "Rule 1(h) Assistant Communications Constructionman-An employee training for position of Communications Constructionman."

 and from March 1, 1967, as amended:

 "ARTICLE I - Classification

 "(b) Communications Construction Foreman-An employee under the supervision of a Communications Supervisor assigned to supervise and direct the activities of the Communications Department Construction Employees assigned under his supervision."

 "(c) Cook-An employee under the jurisdiction of the Communications Construction Foreman assigned to prepare and serve meals for the Communication Department employees assigned to and quartered in the camp outfits and to maintain in a clean and sanitary condition the kitchen dining car, it's equipment and immediate premises; perform other reasonable duties that may be assigned by the Foreman and that are generally recognized as having been performed by cooks, i.e.; purchasing of groceries and supplies, arranging for the laundering of bedding."

 Award No. 9277
 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-'82

 Complainant Organizatim asserts that the renewal,installation, removal, repair, maintenance of poles and pole lines on the aforementioned Dayton Branch, has historically been done by the Electrical Craft, particularly the Communications Department Line Gangs and specifically, Line Gang 4. As major support for its contention on this latter point, Complainant Organization cites the following notarized letter dated September 14, 1979, submitted to it upon inquiry of Mr. Roger Harlow, a retired Communications Supervisor of the former Erie Lackawanna Railway Company. This letter reads in full as follows:

 "980 Edison Avenue
 Marion, Ohio
 September 14th 1979

 Mr. Spartaco mazzulli
 General Chairman
 I.B.E.W. System Council #12
 200 Seton Road
 Buffalo, New York 14225

 Dear Mr. Mazzulli:

 Regarding your letter of September 5th 1979 of the instance of certain pole line rebuilding work being done on the Dayton, Ohio Branch from Maitland to Route 334 Overhead (between Maitland and Glen Echo).

 I was employed by the Erie Lackawanna Railway Company as
 F orm 1 Award No. 9277
 Page 4 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-182














In defense, Carrier raises several procedural matters it claims bars this Board from consideration of the merits of the instant case. Foremost is the contention by Carrier that the subject claim belongs before the Third Division of our Board rather than the Second Division. Carrier bases its contention on the fact that even though all the Claimants named herein are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, none of them are job classified as electricians, but rather are employes of the Communications Department. As such, Carrier argues, the Second Division lacks legislative jurisdiction under Section 3, First (h) of the Railway Labor Act which sets forth explicitly the jurisdictions of each of the four (4) Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. With respect to the jurisdiction of the Second and Third Division s, Section 3, First (h) reads as follows



Since an affirmative finding with respect to this argument would be dispositive of the instant claim we shall address it immediately. We agree with Carrier that such a jurisdictional issue can be raised at any time in the handling of a claim, even for the first time before this Board and we have so affirmed this principle in numerous awards over the years. Thus, we recognize the legitimacy of this
 defense but we find we must dismiss it because Carrier has failed to provide _

 adequate and sufficient information as to the Class of work actually performed by
 the Claimants herein. In raising such a defense, we believe Carrier has the burden
 Form 1 Award No. 9277
 Page 5 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-182

 to prove the Claimants are not performing work of the class and craft known to be that belonging to Electricians. We believe Carrier's assertion that each of the Claimants was a communications and signal department employee under the jurisdiction of the Maintenance of Way Department not to be sufficiently enlightening or persuasive for us to dismiss the instant claim based on a determination this Division lacks jurisdictional authority over the class and craft of the Claimants.

 Carrier next submits the instant claim as stated and presented is procedurally defective based on timeliness and lack of specificity relative to exact dates the disputed work was performed, the agreement rules violated and the remedy sought. In our comprehensive examination of the entire record, we find we must reject all of the procedural arguments raised by the Carrier. With regard to timeliness, we find Complainant Organization did comply with contractual time limits of the two (2) aforecited collective bargaining agreements, effective May 1, 1956 and March 1, 1967. Subsequent to its discovery of the disputed work in December of 1978, it timely filed claim well within the 60 day limitation set forth in Article 5, Rule 19(f) and Article X, Paragraph (f) respectively of the two (2) agreements. As to specificity with regard to dates the disputed work was performed we find that, although Carrier has no responsibility in perfecting a claim against itself, there is something odious in its action of withholding readily available and simple data available and known only to itself and then to turn around and use this as a defense against Complainant Organization's claim. Under the given circumstances we judge the statement of claim to be as specific as it could possibly be relative to the dates in question and to the applicable rules alleged to be violated as well as the remedy sought.

 On the merits, Carrier notes that the pole line in question, though originally installed as a joint line, was, when rebuilt, solely a signal circuit pole line. As such, the disputed work, contends the Carrier, is not by agreement rule, reserved exclusively to Communications Constructionmen, Communications Foremen, or Cooks as so alleged by Complainant Organization, nor by system-wide custom, practice and tradition. Carrier argues that Section (g) Article 1 - Classification, relied upon by Complainant Organization as supporting its claim to the disputed work, enumerates only those functions related to communications poles, whereas there is no reference at all to signal circuit poles. Axiomatically, it follows, insists the Carrier, that the subject work in controversy is not communications work and therefore Claimant Constructionman have no demand right of any kind to said work. Carrier vigorously submits the pole line in question will be used solely for signal operations, and no communications circuits are involved.

 Complainant Organization argues it matters not whether the rebuilt pole line is solely a signal circuit line as all work pertaining to the installation of the poles accrues to its members except that part which pertains to installing the signal lines and wires.

 The record reflects the Signalmen's Organization did file a response wherein it contends that work on a pole line which exclusively is a signal pole line accrues to signal forces and not to communications employees. In support of its contention, the Organization cites its Scope Rule under the Agreement between itself and the Erie Lackawanna Railway Company, effective January 1, 1974 which reads as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 9277
 Page 6 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-182

 "This Agreement covers rates of pay, hours of service and
 working conditions of all employees specified in Rule I
 engaged in the construction, installation, inspection,
 testing, maintenance and repair either in the Signal Shop
 or field of
 (a) Electric, electro-pneumatic, pneumatic, electro
 mechanical or mechanical interlocking systems; electric,
 electro-pneumatic, pneumatic or mechanically operated
 signals and other signals and other signaling systems;
 electrically operated highway crossing protective devices
 and appurtenances of all these devices and systems.
 (b) Electric or electro-pneumatic car retarder systems
 (excluding track work), traffic control systems, wayside
 automatic train controlling or stopping devices, Signal
 Department pole and duct lines and high tension lines
 and charging apparatus, signal wires and cables in joint
 duct and pole lines, bonding of track for signal and
 interlocking purposes.
 (c) Storage battery plants with charging outfits and
 switchboard equipment, substation and current generating
 plants, compressed air plants and compressed air pipe



Based on a review of the entire record, we find a preponderance of the evidence favors the position advanced by Complainant Organization. In comparing the Classification of Work rules between the Electrical Workers and the Signalmen, we note as significant the Electrical Workers' Rule makes reference to poles independent of lines, whereas the Signalmen's Rule makes reference only to lines, wires and cables with no separate reference to poles only. This finding coupled with the letter from former Communications Supervisor, Roger Harlow, persuades us that the disputed work, insofar as reinstalling the poles, belonged to Claimants rather than to employes of the Signalmen's Line Gang.

 With respect to the remedy, we concur in Carrier's position there are no provisions to award a penalty rate. We direct the Carrier to appoint representatives
 to meet with representatives of Complainant Organization to examine and analyze
 the relevant records and data necessary in computing the proper remuneration to
 be disbursed to the Claimants. In their computations, we advise the parties to
 determine the total amount of time involved relative to the installation of the
 poles only. The proper wage rate applicable to this time shall be the pro rata
 rate then prevailing for the communications employes. Any difference between the
 amount of wages actually earned by Claimants and the amount they wou13 have earned
 had they been assigned to perform the disputed work shall serve as part of the
 proper remuneration. Additionally, any difference between the amount of wages low
 which would have been earned by Claimants had they performed the work and the actual
 Form 1 Award No. 9277
 Page 7 Docket No. 8639-T
 2-CR-EW-182

 amount of wages earned by the Signalmen assigned to the work shall serve as the other part of the proper remuneration.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By . _,
    : s marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of August, 1982.