(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPfIlz:

STATRIBDZI' OF CLU31: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Fail-
 roed Signalmea on the Baltimore end Ohio Railroad Company. that:

 (a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Signalmen's Agreement particularly the Scope, when 1965, and thereafter, other than Signal Department Employee vary assigned to install and maintain a control machine and/or other transmitting and receiving devices at Grafton, Burnsville Junction, Ceatr111a, and Erbacan, West Virginia, for the purpose of controlling and indicating the signals and associated equipment between Grafton and each of the latter three locations mentioned.

 (b) Signal Foreman L. Hanlon, Jr., Signalmsa W. D. Nsyle, Sigaslmsn H. Siders, Jr., Signalman J. S.Lucas; Assistant Sigoalmap L. Siders, Assistant Signalmen J. L. ?owner, Assistant Signalman J. 8. Davis, Assistant Signalman K. E. Rheinhardt; Signal Foreman P. D. Sepfal; Signal Maintainer R. B. MCCua; Assistant Signalman J. Gray; Signal Maintainer H. W. Richardson and/or their successors, be allowed an amount of time at their individual applicable rates equal to that consumed by other persons in installing and maintaining the signal systems at Graftm,
OPMCN OF BOARD: The dispute arises tram Carrier's failure and/or refusal
 to assign to Signal Department employee the installation and maintenance of a control machine and/or other transmitting and receiving devices. !he claim involves the installation and maintenance of "carrier" equipment and control machine. It is the Organization's position that the installation, maintenance, testing and repair of said equipment accrues to amployes covered by the Signalman's Agreement and that Carrier violated the Scope Rao of said Agreement by a1loring telephone maintainers represented by the IBZW to perform this work.

 Carrier defends contending that the installations are not being used to operate signals governing train movement; the equipment was not installed four signal purpos signal purporea, and that the work in question has been historically and traditionally work of the Communication Department and does not accrue to employee covered by the Sigoalman's Agreement.


Relative to the "carrier" equipment, we feel the claim is governed by Awards 18898, 19000 and 19131 involving the same parties, and the same contentions raised herein, and we do not find those Awards palpably in error. Consequently, we find that the "carrier" equipment installed in this instance was installed as part of an overall communications system and this work belongs to telephone maintainers not claimants. Carrier further contends that the control machine also was installed as part of an overall communications system and consequently the installation and repair thereof belongs to telephone maintainers. It is the opinion of this Board that the reasoning in Awards 18898, 19000 and 19131 is applicable herein and we find that the organization has failed to adequately refute the Carrier's contention.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of ^he Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, _inds 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 29th day of September 1972.