(d) While standby service is not needed at the present time on the Russell and Chicago Divisions, it is understood that the provisions of paragraph (a) apply to the maintainer positions (not including traveling mechanic), and when service requirements show a need for standby service all the provisions of this Rule 25 will apply.

(e) This rule does not apply to monthly rated traveling mechanics covered by Rule 54."

That rule provided a plan of alternation Each week end half of the maintainers stood by and half were free. The half standing by were used to protect their own territories and those of the other half who were free. In framing new Rule 25 this arrangement was changed, so that all maintainers were to be free; but if needed, the man on whose territory the trouble occurs is to be called first and given preference. If he cannot be located, the carrier is then free to call another employe.

Certainly the revision of Rule 25 did not contemplate any such construction as the employes now urge. To sustain their position would not only disrupt the orderly working of other rules of the agreement but would in many instances impose unwarranted conditions on the carrier. The following illustrations serve to show how this could operate:

1. Suppose a signal gang of 10 men were engaged in some major construction or repair work. On Friday it is determined that some phase of the work must be carried on on Saturday, requiring the services of 4 men. Under the employes interpretation of the rules only 3 men could be used of the construction gang and the maintainer on whose territory the work was being progressed would have to be called, take over the gang employes' tools and materials, and perform the work. If the work involved more than one maintainer territory, an even more absurd situation would arise.

2. A monthly rated mechanic may be assigned to test relays over a division or a part of the division. The work becomes delayed, and in order to catch up on it, arrangements are made to work on Saturday. The maintainer on whose territory the relay testing is to be done, could according to the theory of this claim, demand the work. Therefore, the regular relay man would have to turn his equipment, etc., over to the maintainer for the testing on Saturday.

To summarize-Rule 17 (g) has no application to the principle involved in this case, because it was designed to apply to work which would on regular assigned work days belong to a particular position.

In other words, it was intended to give additional work to unassigned employes who had not made 40 hours in that week and also relieve the regular men of working overtime when such unassigned employes were available. It did not confer on maintainers any additional rights to Saturday work which was being performed on weekdays by another group of employes.

The employes themselves, by not contesting the rights of the employes used to perform the work on weekdays admit that the work is not work belonging to maintainers. Yet, they would have the Board believe that on Saturday the work suddenly becomes maintainer work and should be taken away from other employes under the same agreement and given to maintainers.

The claim is utterly without merit and should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is advanced by Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, hereinafter called Petitioner, for and on behalf of certain employes referred to by name in Statement of Claim, hereinafter called Claimants, complaining of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, hereinafter caller Carrier.

Claimants are classified as signal maintainers and as such hold regular assignments. The record reflects where they protect their work and it also describes at least a portion of their duties which is what we are interested in and is sufficient for our purposes. The act complained of on the part of Carrier occurred on one of Claimant's regular assigned rest days. Petitioner avers such act to be repugnant to Schedule Rules 17 (g) and 26 and prays for relief as set out in Statement of Claim.

Carrier contends in effect Claimants do not have the exclusive right to protect the work in question during the work week as evidenced by the fact employes not within Claimants' classification performed such work during the week without complaint by Petitioner or Claimants and therefore they cannot now be heard to complain in this case.

We are not impressed by Carrier's theory of the case. Assuming the facts to be as alleged by Carrier the Claimants were not damaged during the work week by Carrier's act and hence Petitioner would have no basis upon which to file or progress a claim on their behalf. But the same situation does not prevail on rest days. We think the general rule may be stated as holding that if a work assignment is to have any meaning whatever it must mean the holder has the right to protect the work thereof. This is not to say there are no exceptions to the rule but it is to say if such existed the honorable carrier member of the Board who so ably represented Carrier could not urge same in that he was not furnished with evidence showing or tending to show the same. Furthermore, this is not to say Petitioner could have successfully urged a claim on behalf of those other than Claimants and falling within the classification here involved in that such is not before us and this opinion is not to be so construed.

There is no question Claimants did not work on the day in question or that the work is a part of their assignment. That portion of Schedule Rule 17 (g) reading "in all other cases by the regular employes" is mandatory.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That both parties to this dispute waived oral hearing thereon;

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 Carrier violated the schedule as alleged and that the individuals named in the Statement of Claim be paid a mimmum call allowance at a pro rata rate.

AWARD