(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Western Maryland Railway Company

(a) That the Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope, when a track foreman and a trackman were called to clear signal trouble at Rockwood, West End, instead of the Meyersdale, Pa., Mainta'ner, D. L. Horning, and his Assistant J. A, Pennington.

 (b) That Mr. D. L.Horning and Mr. J. A. Pennington now be allowed three (3) hours each at time and one-half rate, as requested on time claim dated January 11, 1970, (B.R.S. Case No. 1 - 1970)

 OPINION OF BOARD: On Sunday, January 11, 1970, there was a heavy snow. A
 track gang (members of M.W,E.) was clearing snow on the
 tracks. Part of their job was to clear snow from switches. The train dispatcher
 noticed on the control panel that one of the switches did not return to its normal
 position. He assumed that there was snow in the switch and notified the Mainten
 ance of Way Department. Two trackmen, who were engaged in clearing the snow were
 instructed to clean the switch involved, and they did so, after which the switch
 returned to normal.

 The Organization claims that its members should have been sent to determine what was wrong with


We have held, that clearing snow is generally considered part of the job of maintenance of way employees; the maintenance and operation of signals are jobs covered by signalmen.

 Of the various cases cited, Award Number 19186 (Cull) is directly in point. There, we sustained the argument made by the petitioner herein, that "when a malfunction at the switches .., was indicated on the control machine, it was not up to the operator to guess or to speculate as to the cause, but to assign a signalman to determine the trouble and to correct it." "The fact, that trackman were already out, is immaterial."

 See also Awards 11761, 18372 (Dorsey), 19332 (Devine), 19270, 19272, 18557.


On the basis of the above awards, we sustain the claim of the Petitioner.

 We have considered the submission of Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees and find that our decision herein cannot be affected by it.



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;

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



        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May, 1973.