"The record shows that there was no signal failure, The Supervisor based upon his observation, determined that no signal work existed that would make it necessary to call the Claimant. Even if this 'observing' and 'looking' by the Supervisor be regarded as 'inspection and 'testing' this Board in Award 1498, in a case involving the same Organization said; 'We concede, as claimed by the Carrier, that all inspection work is not covered by the agreement. Obviously, officials of a Railroad, both high and subordinate * * * do inspection work, This is carried on as an incident in the performance of their duties as officials " * *.' The Carrier's claim of a long established practice in the following statement in the record has not been denied: 'Ile was simply fulfilling his duties and obligations as a Supervisor, the same as he and other officers and supervisors have done since time immemorial, and all without prior complaint or claim from either the Employes or their representatives.'

"The Board must find that the Carrier is not required to call a Signal Maintainer so he can make a determination whether signal work exists for which he should properly be called. This Board in Award 4828 stated: 'All supervisory officers are charged with varying amounts of inspection work which is inherent in their positions. But it does not include the inspecting and testing necessary to the proper installation, maintenance and repair of the signal system.' *

"The Board from the evidence must conclude that the Supervisor in this case made only that inspection which was required and inherent in his position as a Supervisor in order to determine whether it was necessary to call the Claimant to perform signal work. The Petitioner did not sustain its burden of proof to show that the Supervisor did any of the inspecting or testing necessary to the installation, maintenance or repair of the signal system.

"In Award 4946 this Board stated: 'The yardmaster had the right * * * to examine for the purpose of determining if claimant should be called to make repairs.'

"The same principle is controlling under the facts in this case."

(Exhibits not Reproduced.)

These inspections were made by the following personnel working together:

L. H. Dyke, General Signal Inspector;

0. G. Carey, Signal Supervisor;

H. P. Lutz, Leading Maintainer, the claimant herein;

W. Ardel, Foreman of Maintainers.

It will be observed that the first two of these are supervisory and the other two are craft employes.

There is much in the file that is beside the issue. The Organization spends too much time arguing about who was to blame for the bad condition of the interlocking plant. In its submission the Organization repeatedly asserts the broad claim that work done by General Signal Inspector, Dyke, belonged to the Leading Signal Maintainer, Lutz, and then proceeds to build its case upon this assumption. It assumes the very point in issue and doesn't supply enough real evidence to support its case.

The real issue involved is whether the particular work done here by General Signal Inspector, Dyke, encroached upon the signal duties or work reserved exclusively by te Agreement to signalmen. We have a question of where to draw the line between duties of supervisors and duties of employes covered by the working Agreement.

The then current working Agreement between the parties does include the words "construction installation, inspection, testing, maintenance and repair in signal shops or field, " * * and all other work generally recognized as signal work."

The Organization admits with admirable candor that all supervisory officers are charged with a varying amount of inspection work which is inherent to their positions. This Board has so held on previous occasions and common sense tells us that supervisory personnel have some right and duty to inspect the work of subordinates and this must have been understood at the time of drafting any Agreement.

We have the question of how much, where to draw the line beyond which we will say to management, "You may inspect this far and no further." There is no clear cut answer. It is a matter of degree and circumstances.

The Organization lists 175 items of inspection performed by Dyke. Its complaint is that Dyke did more than make an ordinary supervisory inspection that he made a point by point test, that he "took the plant apart," so to speak, and we are convinced that he, together with the three others, did just that.

We hold, first that Dyke did no testing. This much seems clear, Lutz, the claimant, did the physical work in all tests. He did the actual work in handling tools, cranking switch machines, pry testing of switch points, making adjustments, etc.

We hold next, after studying the list of 175 items which Dyke did perform and discussing them with both sides, that he did inspection that was inherent in supervision under the circumstances, that there is nothing in the Agreement or past practice which requires a General Signal Inspector to keep hands off, and that Dyke did not encroach upon work reserved exclusively to signal employes.

In view of the fact that the Railroad is responsible to the public for safe conditions on its road, responsible to its employes under the Federal Employer's Liability Act and responsible to the government under the Signal Inspection Act and other safety regulations, the Carrier has a duty to be assured and to know that conditions and equipment are safe. Its obligation is tremendous, much more so now than under common law.

In the case at hand management's judgment was that a rather detailed inspection was necessary by these four persons in order that it might have the necessary knowledge and assurance that conditions and equipment were right.

Of course these statutes and these legal obligations do not prevent the Carrier from contracting all inspection work to the Signalmen. Neither do

they relieve the Carrier of its contractual obligation to them, but these legal obligations are important in convincing us that the Carrier would never severely restrict its own right to know, its own right to be assured and its own right to inspect, at least not to the extent contended for by the Organization in this case.

We hold that there was no violation of the Agreement.

Our decision does not seem inequitable in light of the fact that the complainant, Lutz, was fully employed throughout the time in question and that there is no evidence in the record of his or anyone having lost compensation or any other advantage or opportunity.

(See Awards Nos. 1498, 1802, 4828 and 6221.)

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 there was no violation of the Agreement.

AWARD