(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 ( (Pere Marquette District)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Pere
 Marquette District).

 (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope, Classification, Seniority, Bulletining, and Assignment rules when, beginning on or about March 4, 1969, it assigned and/or permitted other than signal employes to perform work in connection with the installation of highway crossing protection devices at Carroll Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate E. V. Brady, Signal Foreman, I. D. 2499164, D. Lane, Signalman, I. D. 2491940, D. Brooks, Signalman I. D. 2607593, D. Rogers Asst. Signalman, I. D, 2609619, B. Kamps, Asst. Signalman, I. D. 2609645, a at their respective overtime rate of pay, on a proportionate basis, for all manhours spent by others protective devices, beginning March 4, 1969 and continuing thereafter so long as such work is performed by other than signal forces, with this to be a continuing claim covering a
(c) Carrier should assign all maintenance, repair and testing work in connection with these signals to the signal maintainer on whose territory they were installed, or compensate that signal maintainer at his overtime rate of pay for all time other than signal employes spend in maintaining these signals after they are installed.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The work in dispute is that in connection with the installa
 tion of continuously flashing red lights which warn motorists
 that they are approaching a railroad crossing at grade. It is contended that such
 device is covered by the Scope Rule of the parties' Agreement because the employes
 under that Agreement have always installed the Carrier's highway crossing signals.

 The Carrier's defense includes an acknowledgement that signals covered by the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement include these used in connection with the control and operation of trains and that employes covered t)y the signalmen's agreement ins here in question only informs motorists of the presence of a railroad crossing.


The Employes have not overcome the Carrier's defense. The claim must be denied.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and ail 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


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


'fut i~