"The question presented by this submission is whether or not the placing of a temporary shunt on a track circuit while a cribbing machine is being removed from the tracks constitutes signal work falling within the scope of the Signal Department Employes' Agreement of June 1, 1344, and to be performed exclusively by employes of such class. The work was done upon this property by Maintenance of Way employes. (Emphasis ours.)

"The Scope Rule in the agreement before us reads:

'This agreement covers rates of pay, hours of service and working conditions of all employes specified in Article 1 engaged in the installation and maintenance of signal apparatus and performing work generally recognized as signal work.'

"See also Rule 4.

"The act complained of clearly does not fall within the scope of the first emphasized phrase. True, 'maintenance' contemplates the proper functioning of the signals as stated in Award No. 3688, but when considered in connection with the use of a lining bar or some other device or a shunt of their own design long applied by non-skilled employes on this line, we are not impressed with the contention of the intricacies involved in its proper application and interference with the proper functioning of the signal system. In interpreting the general language contained in the second emphasized phrase, we must resort to custom and practice to ascertain if the work in question has been generally recognized as signal work. * * * "

As previously stated by carrier, it has been the practice for many years on this railroad for officials to make efficiency tests which include the use of a shunt wire placed across the rails in making automatic block or interlocking signal tests. The placing of a shunt wire across the rails has never been recognized as signal work.

Carrier submits it is apparent from the foregoing that the signal supervisor and assistant supervisor applying a temporary shunt wire on the track for the purpose of making an efficiency test, does not constitute carrier assigning or otherwise directing generally recognized signal work to persons not covered by the signalmen's agreement, in violation of the agreement, as contended by the employes.

It is also apparent that the shunting of a circuit by use of a temporary shunt wire does not constitute "work" reserved exclusively to employes covered by the signalmen's agreement.

It is, therefore, obvious there is no basis for the claim, contractually or otherwise, and that same should be declined.

All matters referred to herein have been presented, in substance, by the carrier to representatives of the employes, either in conference or correspondence.

OPINION OF BOARD: As in Award No. 11507, Docket No. SG-11003, the Scope Provision of the Agreement reserves to Signalmen "any other work

generally recognized as signal work"; and, the issue presented is whether the shunting of the signal system circuit by a supervisory employe, engaged in conducting an efficiency test, violated the Agreement.

For the reasons stated in Award No. 11507, Docket No. SG-11003, we will sustain the claim.

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

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 Agreement.

AWARD