(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
((Pacific Lines)

STATEt".ENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood o!
Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (former Pacific Electric Railway Company) that:













OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants are employed in Carrier's Signal Department.
On September 26 and October 21, 1969, in connection with moving an oversized barge-like piece of equipment (for over-seas shipment) along city streets in Long Beach, California, employees of Contractors Cargo Company removed and reset Carrier's Signal F1=.sher (a highway crossing protection device) at 7th Street and Pico Avenue to make room for passage.
                  Award Number 19595 Page 2

                  Docket Number SG-19343


Petitioner claims (without denial by the Carrier) that under the Agreement the work of removing and resetting the Flasher was reserved to Carrier's Signal Employees. The Organization claims that "in allowing the employees of Contractors Cargo to perform signal work" the Carrier violated the Agreement.

The record contains no probative evidence that the Carrier authorized or "allowed" the work in question to be performed by employees of Contractors Cargo; the Carrier denies that it gave any ^ermission or authority for the work. There is even sore question as to Carrier's 'cnowledge of the worn: till after the fact.

        I.-..`.ward No. l-0"5 we held:


        "...if any wor:f: was performed on Erie-Lackaw:u;na property or equipment, it was performed without Uhe consent or agreement ox Erie-Lac::awanaa Railroad. Tterefore, the burden of proof shifted to the Org<ni7atien to Usorove Carr·_er's contentions. The record in void of cr;/ such rrcof -nd it, rust be concluded th;l.t the Or-rnization h,-,s failed to lust:.in its burden. To hcld C!%rrier resnensit,le :or ;.:onnn ; un^uthorizsd ;:,ct would nl^cc Carrier in -r indefensible no.7ition. ::e .;rr^irds ~'f,'1+7, 105401, 1007, 146:;:3, .rind 14'? <rnon- n:rL· cthcr^."


:!e ha11 reafirm t ·ie rosition e:hich we '-we tn'.-en in .^.. long line of cases ch:.t ccncuct of tn9.rd F^rties which is not: -u'~:hori-cd by the Carrier cannot ocrve ^-.,~. -,.)7rr b sis for clcim^. such. -o in this c-Isc.

        ?IT'n7`~IS: The Third Divisicn of the Adjustrnnt :card, upon. t::e whole record ^nd °11 the ev-idencc, finds c.nd holds:


        That tae -:_rtics :.dived cr-:1 he-.rinL;


That the C -rricr ~.nd the Eraloycs inv^l,·ed in this dispute are respectively Carrier =.nd re)leyes within t._^_ n^-Tlin:- of the anilway IK1bor Act, as approved June 21, 1;34;

Th^.t thi^ Pivicicn of the Ad,~str.^nt. L:,-·rc h~.s j·irisdiction over the dis~·.tc involvcd herein; end

        Th-.t the AEreement was not violated.


i
                    Award Number 19595 age 3

                  Docket Number SG-19343

                  A W A R D


        CL=im denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i / . e";VK#,ftq .Oe
Executive ~scro t~.ry

Dated at Chica;·o, Ill:.noie, i,"i^ 14th -,r of February 1973.