THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al. that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute, like others from this property, of which some have been decided by the Division and several are awaiting adjudication, involves the performance of Signal Work by persons not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement.
In connection with the installation of overlay track circuits at or near Platt Springs Road, Columbia, South Carolina, it was necessary to bury underground signal cable.
Signalmen were assigned to the project; however, Carrier arranged for and/or otherwise permitted a contractor to do a part of the work. On August 27 and 30, 1965, Contractor Andrews with one man, a back-hoe loader, and plow installed the underground signal cable. They worked four (4) hours each on both days in the performance of this work.
As a result of the obvious violation of the Scope of the effective Signalmen's Agreement, claim by Vice General Chairman G. F. Harper, on behalf of Crossing Signal Maintainer P. G. Lotshaw, Columbia, South Carolina, was presented to Signal & Electrical Superintendent L. C. Brown in a letter dated October 10, 1965, which has been reproduced and identified as Brother-
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts, which are undisputed, are that in installing a spur track at Cayce, S. C., an electrically operated highway crossing protective device was moved from one side of the track to the other. While installing the electrical cable, Carrier contracted with Andrews Contracting Company to bury the underground signal cable by using a small tractor with a backhoe attached thereto. Claimant herein was present when the work was being done and, in fact, handled the cable as the cable was being buried in the earth.
The Organization's position is that the work involved herein is within the Scope Rule of the Agreement and that the Agreement was violated when Carrier diverted generally recognized signal work to persons not covered by the Agreement.
Carrier's contention is that it did not have available the special equipment required to perform the job and, therefore, was justified in contracting for a machine to pull the cable plow.
This dispute, involving these same parties, and a similar factual situation decided by this Board in Award 15874 (Miller), and it was so held:
See also Award 15497 (House). Therefore, we must find that the Agreement was violated, and the claim will be 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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;