Alfred H. Brent, Referee


          (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

          PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          (Northern Pacific Railway Company


                        STATE'fENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signal


          (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope - Rule 1, when on or about January 13 and 14, 1966, the Electrical Department installed in Montana at West Frenchtown, East Frenchtown, and DeSmet the 220-volt service connections for commercial power used solely to feed signal circuits and storage batteries in the Centralized Traffic Control System between Miss which system was installed by Signal Foreman B, J, McComb's Gang No, 1,


          (b) Carrier be required now to pay leading Signalman J,S. Young, Signalman A, H. Johnson, Leading Signalman L. H, Young, Signalman B. B. Johnson, Signalman F, G. Nepstad, and Signalman R. L, Tridale eight (8) hours each at their respective pro-rata rates.


          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 hSG-17502 and SG-17589 and shall be incorporated in both

          be reference.


          This Board has held on innumerable occasions that cohere work has been tre3itionally 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 charge of management policy fn regard to the assignment of this disputed work. This is supported by the letter of S. C. Scrorder, Signal Engineer, setting f "Management's policy now (e:-.:nh_sis added) requires that electrical workers install the work far which you are now raking, claim and consequently there is nothing further that can be dog= about this matter."


      I


Y. ...
                Award Number 19526 Page 2

                Docket Number SG-17589


The "now" emphasized above would indicate that it was not the practice previously. The Carrier and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers both argued or, 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 -0f17502 the electric energy was supplied to a detector device and in Docket X17589 the electric energy was supplied to a centralized traffic control system. It is important to note that the Carrier, in Docket -0k17502, 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 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 superreded 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 twenty seven years cannot now be changed arbitrarily or unilaterally. The claim 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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 .. , cv i
                  Award Number 19526 Page 3

                Docket Number SG-17589


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

        The Agreement was violated


                    A W A R D

        The claim is sustained.

        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        v By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 61
 Executive Secretary

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