(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, and continues to violate, Agreements The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Com Rules 1 (scope) and 34 (seniority district limits) of the current Signalmen's "working" agreement; and in particular Article III, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 (stabilization of employment) agreement, when on or about June 15, 1966 it arbitrarily allowed, diverted or removed work from its signal employes assigned to this district, in particular work involved in improvements and/or maintenance of signal facilities between home signal limits of the Wabash (now N&W) portion of CW interlocking plant located at or near Peru, Indiana; said work having been assigned to and maintained by C&0 employes for more than fifty (50) years. As a result of this action, we now ask that:

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate employes named below at their applicable pro rata rate of pay and in a comparable amount of time that other than C&O employes were allowed to perform work as cited in part (a) of this claim. Due to this claim being a continuing violation, we also request that said claim be retroactive sixty (60) days from filing date (September 25, 1967) and to continue until the Carrier takes necessary corrective action to return the work cited in part (a) to the jurisdiction of employes covered in above mentioned Agreements between the Signalmen's Organization and The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company:







I


OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein is a companion dispute to that covered
 by Award 19369, the instant _ase having to do with
 the maintenance of the facilities at Peru, Indiana.

 For the reasons stated in Award 19369 , we do not find a violation of the scope or seniority rules of the C&0 Signalmen's Agreement.

 In its statement of claim, the Petitioner alludes to the February 7, 1965, Job Stabilization Agreement, but it does not discuss that Agreement or the application thereof in its submission. Any allegad dispute involving the February 7, 1965 Agreement is properly referable to tae Disputes Committee established under that Agreement. Awards 16552, 15695, 14979.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment 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.


                    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                    By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~ x~ Executive Secretary


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