(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between t represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) and particularly Rule 16, which resulted in violation of Rule 70.

 (b) Mr. G. J. Wees be allowed eight (8) hours pay at his time and onehalf rate for Thursday, :ar at his time and one-half rate for Friday, March 13, 1970, account Gang employee not assigned to regular maintenance duties, were assigned to perform Mr. Weea' regular assigned duties on his rest days. (Carrier's File: SIG 152-271)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that Carrier violated the applicable Agreement
 when it failed to call claimant far work on his rest days as required by Rule 16.

 Claimant, Signal Maintainer G. J. Wees, along with Signal Maintainers R, C. Walker and R. D. Hanson, was regularly assigned to signal work in Carrier's car retarder yard at Eugene, Oregon. Claimant had regularly assigned rest days of Thursday and Friday. Eugene Yard is included in the area served by Signal Gang MI6, which had assigned rest days of Saturday and Sunday.

 On March 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 1970, Signal Gang dp6 was assigned to a project at Eugene Yard renewing bolts and adding shims in "inert retarders". The signal gang and the three regularly assigned Signal Maintainers worked on the project together, coordinating their activities. Claimant, Signal Maintainer Wees, worked on the project on March 10, 11, 17, and 18, but did not work on his rest days of March 12 and 13, 1970.

 The claim is that, because he was regularly assigned to Eugene Yard, Signal Maintainer Wees had a preference under Rule 16 to the work performed by Signal Gang lib on his rest days. Carrier's position is that the members of Signal Gang #6 were perf days and that Rule 16 does not require an off-duty employee to be called to duty when on-duty employees are available to perform the work during their regular assigned hours. On the ?roperty Carrier asserted, without contradiction, that the work was not emergency work, but regularly planned maintenance.


        Rule 16 reads as follows:


        "Rule 16, SUBJECT TO CALL. Employes assigned to regular maintenance duties recognize the possibility of emergencies in the operation of the railroad, and shall notify the person designated by the Management where they m promptly when called. When such employes desire to leave their headquarters for a period of time in excess of three (3) hours, they shall notify the person designated by the Management that they will be away, about when they shall return, and when possible, where they may be found. Unless registered absent, regular assigned employes shall be called,"


The above text makes it clear that Rule 16 concerns emergencies which might require employees such as claimant to be called to work during their offduty hours. But the fa category. The disputed work was performed during the regular assigned hours of all employees who worked on the project, including the members of Signal Gang #6, and there was nothing in the nature of the work which required claimant's assistance. We conclude therefore that Rule 16 has no application to this dispute. We observe, in addition, that the Petitioner does not challenge the propriety of the members of Signal Gang I)6 working, on their regular workdays, alongside claimant on workdays of reason or explanation for why this is permissible on claimant's work days, but becomes impermissible those days. Accordingly, and on the whole record, we conclude that Carrier properly assigned the work and we shall deny the claim.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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: E~ x
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1973.