This claim represents an effort on the part of the Employes to impose an uneconomical and inefficient practice upon the Carrier based upon the assertion of a work monopoly, which is not supported by the terms of the agreement, and which the agreement was never intended to bring about.

The handling of electric skates in a car retarder system is not work generally recognized as signal work within the meaning or intent of the scope rule of the c,xrrent agreement and, therefore, there has been no violation by the Carrier of this or any other rule of the agreement in effect in requiring other than signalmen to handle electric skates in the operation of its car retarder system.

In consideration of the above facts, this claim should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows in 1929, a car retarder system was installed in the Oak Island Yard, New Jersey. At that time three Signal Maintainers, i. e., employes assigned to perform work generally recognized as signal work and classified as Signalmen or Signal Maintainers (See agreement effective between the parties, now designated Sec. 7, Article 1, agreement dated July 1, 1942) were employed in this yard working in three tricks around the clock.

Either in 1929 or 1931 electric skate machines which constitute an integral and component part of the car retarding systems were installed in this yard. An electric skate weighs approximately forty pounds and is used only in emergency; it is operated electrically from one of the towers; this operation consists in placing the skate on the rail from its position lying adjacent to the rail, in the event the car retarder apparatus fails to retard sufficiently the operation of any car passing through so as to prevent its striking whatever cars that may be on the track with such force as to cause either broken equipment or the shifting or the damaging of the contents of the car itself. During its use it is usually dragged by the car a distance of two to ten car lengths from the machine which operates it; thereafter it is necessary to carry the skate back to the machine and replace it in readiness when occasion again requires its use. The replacing of the electric skate in its container is accomplished by laying it on the levers or arms of the machine and shoving it in so that a shaft on the arm fits into a slot in the skate.

It is agreed that for a period of ten years following the installation of the car retarder system, the Signal Maintainers replaced the electric skate after its use in its container.

In 1939 the Carrier cancelled the second and third trick Signal Maintainers' positions in this yard; for some time thereafter, when the electric skate machine was used during the second and third tricks, a Signal Maintainer was called to replace it in its container. In the latter part of 1941, the Carrier ceased to use Signal Maintainers to replace the electric skate in its container and assigned this work to its Trainmen or Switchmen. During the month of May, 1942, the second and third trick Signal Maintainers' positions were restored at the Oak Island Yard and again assumed the duty of placing the electric skate in its container; they continued to handle this work until September 12, 1945, and on that date Claimants were removed from their positions and the portion of the work as heretofore specified was turned over to Trainmen.

The first question to be determined is whether or not the replacing of the electric skate in its container comes within the coverage of the Signalmen's Agreement. "It is well settled that work covered by one agreement cannot be performed by employes or others not included within the class specified in the agreement." Award 1486, and awards too numerous to cite.

That part of the Scope Rule pertinent to this case is in substance as follows: It covers "the rates of pay, hours of service and working conditions of all employes in the signal department . . . engaged in the work of construction, installation, inspecting, testing, maintenance and repair of . car rearder systems . . . and all other work generally recognized as signal work."

The Carrier contends that the replacing of the electric skate in its -container is a part of the Trainmen's duty, as it constitutes part of the operation, the doing or performing of action, as the operations of a machine, within the common concept of the word and, therefore, does not come within the scope agreement here being considered.

We deem it unnecessary to detail the various qualifications and duties of signalmen as has been pointed out in previous awards. Suffice it is to say within the contemplation of the Scope Rule, the replacing of the electric skate into its container is not part of an operative process; it is in line of maintenance, up-keep, perparing the machine for father use-an obligation charged to the Signal Maintainers under the Scope Rule and is their responsibility so that in event of improper maintenance, they may be charged accordingly.

The method of handling the retarding of cars as hereto set out constitutes operation; when the cars are properly retarded to meet the situation with which the operator is confronted, the operation by necessity ceases. This fact has unquestionably been recognized by the Carrier as disclosed by the record. We are driven to the conclusion under the facts and circumstances of the record that the work here involved properly belongs to the Signal Maintainers within the contemplation of the Scope Agreement.

With reference to Section (b) of the claim; it was argued in behalf of the Carrier, in addition to carrier's contention that this work is operation work, that when the two positions were taken off in December 1939 the record does not indicate that protest was made by the Organization, but after the decision of the reviewing board March 6, 1945, the claim was filed with the Carrier. Therefore, for a period of six years, the Employes acquiesced that this was work not covered by the Agreement. However, the record does disclose that when the Signal Maintainers were replaced in 1942, they continued to do this work until the positions were abolished September 12, 1945, when the work was again turned over to the Trainmen. The record does not disclose whether the condition with reference to this work is the same as prior to the reestablishment of the two positions or not, or the quantity of such work remaining since September 12, 1945. For the reasons stated herein, Sections (a) and (b) of the claim are sustained.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That Sections (a) and (b) of the claim are sustained.

AWARD