PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEPIFNT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) that:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1.947 (reprin`-ed April 1, 1958, including revisions), when it failed anal/er d~clin_d zo epply the Scope rule which resulted in the violation of Rule 70, b,- assigning recognized signal work to e;nployes who are not covered '3y the Classification Rules of the Signalmen's Agreemcnt, at Jennings H-imp Yard on A·xl:ist 26, September 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and October 7, 1955.

 (b) Mr. S. E. Bradley a·0 Mr. A. E. Sidwell be allowed eight (8) hours each at their prevailing rates for Au-.list 25, September 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and October 7, 1966.

 (c) Any future installation of this type be assigned to e.Tployes covered by the Classification rules of the Signalmen's Agreement. /Carrier's File: SIG 152-214/

 OPINION OF BO.4Rn: On claim dates, Carrier assigned the work of installing
 and maintaining flange oilers and their detectors to employes
 covered by the Maintenance of Way Organization. On these same claim dates,
 Carrier assigned the work of installing a Raco Magnetic D?tector with relays
 and circuitry, to the employes covered by the Electricians' Agreement. A
 portion of the circuitry installation was performed by Signalmen. In this
 dispute, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmsn of America contend that the
 above described work was improperly assigned to Electrician and Maintenance
 of Way employees. Notice of the pendency of this claim waa properly trans
 mitted to the Electrician and Maintenance of Way Organizations. These sub
 missions allege that Carrier properly assigned the work involved in this dis
 pute. The Signalmen's Organization zontends that during 1963, Carrier in
 stalled a flange oiler betwean the retarders and power switches of the retarder
 system to reduce flange wear in the switches; that the Signalmen employes
 installed a French Silec Contactor which was also maintained by Signal employes
 and which controlled the flange oilers on the power switches; that the magnetic
 detectors are connected by means of a signal circuitry to the retarder system
 and are, therefore, a1 integral part of the reta_der system; that the Raco
 Magnetic Detector is a substitute for a track circuit; and that, therefore,
 the assignment of the involved work to employes covered by other than the
                    Docket Number SG-17541


Signalmen's Agreement is a violation of the Scope Rule of Claimants. Carrier denies that the involved work is covered by the Scope Rule of Claimant's Agreement; that the installation of the "Silec Rail Detector" was performed by Signal Department employes only on one occasion; that this work is not performed by Signal Department employes on a system wide basis; that the "Raco Magnetic Detector" are not a part of either the signal system or car recorder system, and that, therefore, this claim should be denied.

 The record in this dispute discloses that only on one occasion did Carrier assign the installation of a"Silec Rail Contactor" to Signal employes, and in that particular case, this work was assigned to Signal employes only for the reason Shop at the time it was needed on an experimental flange oiler. The Scope Rule is void of any specific reference to the involved work. Therefore, since the involved work is not defined anger the Signalmen's Scope Rule, the Organization Must show by a p custom and practice on this property, they have performed such work to the exclusion of all others. The record in this case shags that the Organization has failed to sustain that burden.

 The record further discloses that the primary function of the flange oilers installed at Roseville, actuated by the "Raco Magnetic Detectors" was to increase the rollahility of the cars being classified to preclude the incidents of overspeed impa said flange oilers are not a part of either the Signal System or a Car Retarder System.

 This Board finds that Carrier, in this instance, properly apportioned the work involved in this dispute.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Goard, 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, 193.1;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Number 1`~F;'.~

                    Pa ;e 3 D,~:;~t ,;umh~r SG_17·,4;


                    A W \ D


        Claim '.-,I.' ^...


              NATI(ML KAIGIM:U) ADIL'STYENT BOARD

              ~~v order of ;:Iir2 >;viqion

              1


_ ,r _ G

i:·. :;l

                  Aol


          tl'!; : iC"· 1 ^: V


^ar,?.! .it ~:',)L,, 1, 3 1~ 1 11 is, t;,ls 1Ltil dov -it r0'.ri,.rv 1"3e