(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, in particular Rule 1 (Scope), when, on or about June 15, i966, it allowed, diverted or otherwise removed from Agreement on this Carrier the work involved in converting from Interlocking to CTC system at CW Cabin, Peru, Indiana. Hen:tofore, the construction, improvements and maintenance wi (in respect to the intersection of the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Wabash Railroads) were performed by the employes covered in the Signalmen's Agreement with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. However, the Carrier has removed and allowed other than the Signal Employes on this Carrier to perform the work involved between the Home Signals
(b) Carrier be required to compensate the Claimants named herein at their applicable pro rata rates of pay, in the comparable amount of time that others were allowed to perform the work as cited in part (a) of this claim. This claim to be retroactive sixty (60) days from filing date of claim.










(Carrier's File: SG-240)


OPINION OF BOARD; The claim alleges a diversion of Scope covered work in con
 nection with a Chesapeake and Ohio and Wabash (now Norfolk
 and Western) railroad crossing at Peru, Indiana.

 The record shows that by Agreement between the two Carriers dated May 5, 1914, the C&0 would provide an interlocking plant and operate it. The C&0 constructed such plant and thereafter maintained it with its signal employes. The May 5 1914 Agreement was amended by an agreement between the Carriers dated January 12, 1935, under which agreement the C&O continued to maintain the interlocking facilitie
        "(a) THIS AGREEMENT shall continue and remain in force during the existence and operati-m of the interlocking plant and crossing, or until discc,nti-iued by either party upon one year's written notice.


        "(b) The provisicns of this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, lessees, and assigns."


On September 30, 1965 the two carriers (C&0 and Norfolk and Western) entered into an Agreement by which the two roads agreed that in the future each road would install, operate and maintain the necessary signal facilities on its own properties and rights of way. C&O signal employes, claimants, dispute the right of the Carriers to have the work in the new arrangement apportioned to C&0 and N&W (formerly Wabash) signal employes in the manner provided for in the September 30, 1965 Agreement between the two Carriers.

 Numerous disputes have been before the Board where two or more rail Carriers have found it necessary and desirable to enter into contracts for the performance by one of them of a joint or mutual duty or in other ways to share work required to be performed. It has been consistently held that the work to be performed under such circumstances falls to the Carrier and its employes who by reason of such Agreements between the Carriers, have the superior right or contractual duty to perform it. See Awards 11002, 6210, 3450, among others. Applying this principle to our present dispute, so long as the C&O, by reason of its contract with the Wabash (now N&W) had a right to construct and maintain the interlocking facility, then such signal work belonged to C&0 signal employes. However, when the two Carriers proceeded in a lawful and regular manner to change the Agreement between them to provide that each would install, operate and maintain the necessary si the rights of C&O signal employes to install and maintain signal facilities on the Wabash (now N&W) ceased as the Scope Rule cannot extend to work that does not belong to the Carrier, but only applies to work that the Carrier has to offer, (Award 13056).

        The Claim will be denied.

                  Award Number 19369 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-17169


        FINDINC-S: The Third Division of the Adjustnent 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied,


                            NATIO%AL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ / .-,
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago,. Illinois, this 28th day of July 1972.