Alfred H. Brent, Referee


            (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

            PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

            (Northern Pacific Railway Company


                        STATEMENT OF CLAIM; Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalm


            (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope - Rule 1, when on or about December 20, 1965, the Electrical Department insta used solely to feed signal circuits and charge storage batteries in connection with the High Wide Load Detector, Broken Flange and Loose Wheel Checker at the West End of Laurel, Montana Yard, which detector system was installed by Signal Foreman R. L. Lebsack's Gang No. 3.


            (b) Carrier be required now to pay Signalmen W. R. Leonard and R. G. Michael eight (8) hours each at the pro-rata rate.


            OPINION OF BOARD: Dockets SG-17502 and SG-17589 represent similar factual back

            grounds and involve identical principles: namely, the appli

            cation of the Scope rule and the extent to which the work traditionally performed

            by signalmen until 1962 may now be performed by electrical workers. In both cases

            the carrier assigned to the electrical workers the installation of a 220 volt

            service connection from a commercial power line to a meter loop installed on

            a signal circuit and system. The signalmen objected to this assignment to

            the electrical workers as a violation of the Scope rule. The International

            Brotherhood of Electrical Workers intervened to protect the assignment of the

            disputed work for their members and filed a submission asserting that the dis

            puted work is covered by their agreement with the Carrier. One opinion shall

            apply to both Dockets #SG-17502 and SG-17589 and shall be incorporated in both

            be reference.


            This Board has held on innumerable occasions that where work has been traditionally assigned under the Scope Rule it·will not act to sanction the transfer of the work to another category of employees. It seems clear that there was a unilateral change of management policy in regard to the assignment of this disputed work. This is supported by the letter of S, C, Swrder, Signal Engineer, setting for (emphasis added) requires that electrical workers install the work for which you are now making claim and consequently there is nothing further that can be done about this matter,"


. ~?`· `~ -
                          Award Number 19525 Page 2

                          Docket Number SG-17502


            The "now" emphasized above would indicate that it was not the practice previously. The Carrier and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers both argued. on behalf of the electrical workers that their Scope rule specifically mentions meter loops. The signalmen do not deny that when a meter loop is to be installed in connection with the construction of a station that it is the work of the electricians; it is only when the meter loop is to be installed in connection with a signal system that the signalmen lay claim to the work. the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers lay claim to any work involved in or connected with a signal, signal facility, or signal system, nor is there any practice of reserving the disputed work to the electrical workers.


            In Docket #17502 the electric energy was supplied to a detector device and in Docket #17589 the electric energy was supplied to a centralized traffic control system. It is important to note that the Carrier, in Docket #17502, assigned to signalmen all but the relatively minimal part of the system involved in the installation of the disputed meter loop. It is the opinion of this Board that in so doing they placed the work within the signalmen's craft and therefo Of- signalmen's agreement controls.


            While the Scope Rule of the current signalmen's agreement does not specifically mention meter loops as part of the signalmen's work, this Board has consistently applied as the controlling criterion that if the work to be performed was for the purpose of a signal system it is signalmen's work. The agreement between the signalmen and the Carrier goes back to April 1, 1923. It was superseded by the one which became effective August 1, 1943, which was again superseded by the agreement which became effective April 16, 1950. The practice of assigning this work exclusively to the signalmen for twentyseven years cannot now be is sustained.


          _FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties

          to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole

          record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


            That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


                      I


<_· y.,:i.u.':~
                Award Number 19525 Page 3

                Docket Number SG-17502


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        The Agreement was violated.


                    A 'd A R D


        The claim is sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: otdr· a ~J
        Executive ecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.