FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all file evidence finds that:
The carrier and file employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of file Railway Labor Ac, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of file Adjustment lloard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The parties to sail dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.As result of a deadlock, Paid Sainuell wan called in as Referee to sit with tills Division. The parties certified the following as "Joint Slatentent of Facts":
"On June `l, 1933, L. M. Rhea entered service !it the Signal Department on the Middle Division, workirg 200'x. hours in June tool 6:11/2 hours fn July 1933. For this service lie was classified amt c,aupensmted at the Laborer's rate of 36 cents per hour, less ten percent deduction."
L. bi. Rhea actually reentered service oil June 2d, 1933; lie was without eitiployrnent ininiediaiely prior to that (]life because of forte reduction, having seniority rights as assistant Signalman art the Middle Division.
The current agreorncid between the parties (bearing effective plate of February 1, 1929) governing wage rates and working conditions is applicable to employees "performing the work generally recognized us signal work." Article I thereof defines the work and classifications of signal department call ployeea; Section 2, Article 111, defines the classes for seniority as follows,:
Section 5. Article 1, defines the work and classification of a "Helper" as follows
"RFCTLOK 5. Helper.-A nian assigned to perforrn work generally rceognized as helper's work and to assist signalmen, assistant signalmen, signal mttintaiuers, or assistant signal nwintainers, ,ball be classified as a helper:"
The principal point of contention between the disputants in this case is whether Mr. Rhea during the period of such employment actually performed the duties of a Signalnnan's Helper, although classified and accepted by the employer as a Laborer. The other points in dispute in this case are collateral to this particular issue. The evidence fit this record seenis to support the employees' contention that Mr. Rhea perforined the work of a Signnlinan s