(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines)



(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions) when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope rule of the agreement, and thereby also violated Rule 70 of the same agreement, by not allowing employes covered by this agreement to perform recognized signal work on the air compressors at the Eugene Retarder Yard,

 (b) Mr. W. H. fill be allowed four (4) hours at his time and onehalf overtime rate of pay for Se


(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope rule, and thereby also violated Rule 70 of the same agreement, in not allowing employes covered by this agreement to perform the work of repairing a water pump for the air compressors at the Eugen
(b) Mr. W. E. Hill be allowed four (4) hours at his time and onehalf overtime rate of pay for Se


(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions) when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope rule of the Agreement, and thereby also violated Rule 70 of the same agreement, in not assigning recognized signal work on air compressors at the Eugene Retarder Yard to employes covered by the Signalmen's Agreement - such work being performed by water service department employes on or about September 24, 1963.

 (b) Mr. W. E, 11i11, assigned Signal Maintainer of the Eugene Retarder Yard, be allowed six (a) Hours at his time and one-half overtime rate of pay for
 the second half of September 1963. (Carrier's File: SIG 152-155)


OPINION OF BOARD: This is the most recent to be adjudicated in a series of
 claims involving the power plant and power distribution
 system at the Carrier's car retarder yard at Eugene, Oregon. See Awards Nos.
 10730, 13209, 13211, 13212, 13213, 13214, and 19118.

 We find from the record that the work here in dispute was repair work on said power plant and not work covered by the Carrier's Agreement with its Maintenance of Way Employes. Therefore, and in line with our precedent awards, we must sustain part (a) of each of these claims.

 We find no support in the present record for sustaining part (b) of each claim at overtime rate. Consequently, those parts are sustained but at straight time rate.

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


        That the parties waived oral heari.ng;


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 violated.


                      A w A R D


        Claim sustained per Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          8y Order of Third Division

        Ora

ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1972