Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9335
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9231
 2-MP-EW-183
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute: (
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 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 employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Prior to November 1979, Carrier began experiencing difficulty on the lower microwave channels on its microwave system located at its base radio stations at Gorham, Benton and Bush, Illinois. On November 19, 1979, in an effort to alleviate the problem, Supervisor J. W. Storm2nt sent Communications Maintainer W. Hawkins to Bush, Maintainer H, Heise to Gorham and Maintainer H. Hawkins to Benton for the purpose of putting the Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) Signal System on Channel 7, a clear channel, in place of Channel 3.

 On November 21, 1979, Supervisor Storment made an inspection of the three microwave towers to check on the work performed by the three maintaLnersWwo days; previous. While at the Gorham base radio station, Supervisor Stoxment reversed two wires for the modulator and demodulator on Channel 3. Apparently, the pair of wires had been turned over by Maintainer Heise while he worked at Gorham on November 19, 1979.

 The Organization maintains that Supervisor Storment acted in violation of Rules 1 and 242 of the Agreement when he rewired the modulator and demodulator
 Form 1 Award No. 9335
 Page 2 Docket No. 9231
 2-MP-Ew-'83
 on November 21, 1979. These rules read, in relevant part:
 "Rule 1 SCOPE







According to the Organization, the Scope rule clearly requires that all installation and repair of microwave systems must be performed exclusively by employes covered by the Agreement. Since Supervisors are not covered by the Agreement, the repair of Channel 3 at Gorham could not properly have been done by Supervisor Storment. Instead, Communications Maintainer W. Hawkins should have been assigned this work. Thus, the Organization seeks compensation for Claimant W. Hawkins for two hours and forty minutes at the Class 3 overtime rate for work which he should have been assigned.

 Carrier, on the other hand, insists that there was no violation of the Agreement. It notes that Supervisor Storment was properly inspecting work performed by Maintainer Heise. In Carrier's view, a necessary element of inspecting of work is the correction of errors committed by unit employes. This is particularly true where the correction was a very simple one which took only fifteen minutes to accomplish.

 Furthermore, Carrier points out that Claimant is a monthly rated employe. Therefore, even if Claimant had been instructed to go to Gorham to correct the error, he would not have been additionally compensated, since his monthly rate covers non-emergency repairs of this type. Accordingly, Carrier asks that the claim be denied.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 9335
 Docket No. 9231
 2-MP-EW-'83

 The Scope rule in the Agreement is specific in nature. It clearly indicates that unit members are to repair microwave systems. In addition, the "Note" below the rule suggests that Supervisors may not repair equipment of the type mentioned in the rule. It indicates that the Rule may not prohibit a Supervisor from "inspecting" and "testing" equipment in the performance of his duties. Thus, by omitting such terms as "correcting" and "repairing", the Note implies that the supervisor may neither correct nor repair equipment in the performance of his or her duties.

 It would have been relatively simple for the Scope rule to allow repairs and correction of equipment, in addition to inspecting and testing. This the parties chose not to do and they are bound by their Agreement.

 As to the issue of a remedy, Carrier argued that none is appropriate sire e Claimant's monthly rate contemplates performance of the type of work involved in this dispute. We do not agree. It is axiomatic in railway labor relations that a remedy is ordinarily appropriate where an agreement is violated. Here, as a result of Carrier's violation, work performed by Supervisor Storment should have been assigned to Claimant, thereby increasing his work day.

 Inasmuch as the work in question was "ordinary maintenance work", Claimant is entitled to be paid at the time and a half rate in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3 - Monthly Rated Employes. Accordingly, we will order that: Claimant be compensated for two hours and forty minutes (a "call") at the class 3 time and a half rate in effect on November 21, 1979·

 A W A R D
Claim sustained.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATm NAZ RAI?.ROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By

Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of January, 1983.