"This agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of service and working conditions of all employes in the Signal Department (except supervisory forces above the rank of foreman, clerical forces and engineering forces) performing the work generally recognized as signal work, which work shall include the construction, installation, maintenance and repair of signals, interlocking plants, highway crossing protection devices and their appurtenances, wayside train stop and train control equipment, car retarder systems, centralized traffic control systems, signal shop work, and all other work generally recognized as signal work."

The Claimant contends that the phrases in the Scope Rule:

. . . highway crossing protection devices and their appurtenances, . .

. . . and all other work generally recognized as signal work."

places the work of erecting this pole as a part of the Crossing signal or one of its appurtenances signalmen's work, and the performing of such work by electricians was in violation of the agreement. That the pole was a part of the signal system, the sole purpose of which was to supply electric current necessary to the operation of the Crossing signal and a primary part of and appurtenant to the signal system thus provided for in the Scope Rule.

The Carrier contends that the pole was installed to support service lines, electrical equipment, switch conduit and meter, and thus electricians work specifically according to their current agreement. Moreover, the signalmen's Scope Rule does not specifically list this particular work as belonging to signalmen and if we attempt to imply such work from the specifically enumerated language of the Scope Rule we must consider past practices. Furthermore, the erection of poles, unless primarily used for signal work or the work requiring peculiar skills possessed by signalmen, has never been given to signalmen by past practice on any Carrier.

In order to resolve this matter we must examine the Scope Rule of the current agreement.

The signalmen's Scope Rule accepts jurisdiction over work generally recognized as signal work, Highway Crossing devices and their appurtenances, and all other work generally recognized as signal work. Thus the Claimant recognizes his own lack of jurisdiction by not seeking herein the installation of the equipment on the pole. The signal agreement does not grant to the complainant the right to erect poles exclusively such right is implied if the pole is appurtenant to or generally recognized as signal work. I am of the opinion that the primary purpose of this pole was to support a power line from the main line, meter and switch. Furthermore, the Signalmen had no equipment on the pole with the exception of a service line coming up the pole and connecting with the meter. Appurtenances means that which belongs to something else. Something incident to a principle thing. (Webster's Dictionary.) Thus the pole was incident to the switch and meter rather than the flashing signal.

In addition the complainant has failed to establish any historical pattern, or tradition whereby signalmen have done this work throughout the system. However, the Carrier has presented evidence that such work has not always been done by signalmen. When such work is to be implied from the Scope Rule, which does not exclusively grant the creation of poles to signalmen unless they are primarily for signal purposes, past practice must be shown by clear and concise evidence. The dispute in Birmingham, Alabama referred to in the record recited that the poles carried signal equipment (crossarms etc.) which distinguishes those facts from the dispute at hand. Under the facts and circumstances here I do not consider a power line running up the poles to the switch signal equipment, but general electrical equipment, unless other facts and circumstances are present.

The Signalmen's Scope Rule cannot be implied to include the erection of poles under the facts and circumstances as presented here. No evidence of past practice has been offered by the Claimant. The pole had other uses than for the sole and exclusive use of the signal system. The pole supported the incoming power line, switch and meter which work the Claimant recognized in another craft. The primary use of the power line going from the switch to the signal is part of the signal system. Award No. 3991 of this Division is distinguishable.

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 the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD