(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago and North Western Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Railway
 Company that:

(a) On or about October 29, 1970, the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement when it assigned and/or permitted an employe of the Electrical Department to i crossing protection devices being installed on Nemaha Road near Sac City, Iowa.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Ldr. Signalman D. C. Stuckey for an amount of time equal to that consumed by the employe of the Electrical Department per


(a) On or about December 2, 1970, the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement when it assigned and/or permitted an employe of the Electrical Department to i necessary by the installation of the highway crossing signals at Aurora Street, Des Moines, Iowa.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Ldr. Signalman D, C. Stuckey for an amount of time consumed by the employe of the Electrical Department performing the ab
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves two claims which, though handled
 separately on the property, have been combined here because
 they present the same issue. The claims seek compensation for signal employees
 because Carrier assigned and/or permitted electricians to install "meter loops"
 for the exclusive use of highway crossing signals.

 The Petitioner asserts that a meter loop is an appurtenance for the protection of highway crossings and, accordingly, is specifically covered by the Signalmen's Scope Rule which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:


j


        "in the construction, repairing, renewing, replacing, reconditioning, and maintenance of signals appurtenances on or along thc·. railway tracks for the regulation of the movement of trains, protection of highway crossings, ete.,

        as follows: "


        "Included in the foregoing, when used exclusively for railway signaling purposes, and such parts towers or other buildings or spaces ;issi.gned for railway signaling purpo,nes, are the following:


          1. Installing, maintaining, renewing, and servicing -


                (a) Electric power or other wire lines, overhead or otherwise; poles and fit:tures; conduit and conduit systems, except taien a part of retaining structures or walls; rransformcrs, arrestors, wires and cables."


Petitioner calls attention to Award No. 12697, Third Div·sion, which expressly recognized the meter loop as being an appurtenance to the highway crossing protective device, and further asserts that, because of the herein Scope provision concerning "electric power or other wire lines ....", the basis for the present claim is stronger than the claim considcred in that Award.

 For its part the Carrier asserts that the disputed work has historically been performed on its p this dispute have been recently decided in favor of Carrier in Award Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21 of Public Law Board No. 516, established by agreement between the parties herein.

 From examination of all cited rules, Awards, and the entire record, we readily recognize the basis for and the plausibility of the. Petitioner's arguments that the disputed work is specifically covered by the Signalmen's Scope Rule. However, we also recognize that the public Law Board Awards cited by Carrier, and rendered in its favor in May ef 1971, dealt with facts and issues which are substantially identical to those prcsonted by the instant record. We further note that all arguments presented by Petitioner bore were considered and rejected in the Public Law Board Awards. Accordingly, on the whole record, we conclude that the Law Board Awards and the dispute here, having an identity of parties and issues, should have a cormon decision. We shall. therefore deny the claim.
                Award Humber 1W8 Page 3

                Docket Lumber s,;-19660


        FINDI770S: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evideF:ce, finds and holds:


        That the parties weived oral hearing;


That the Carrier a.^.d the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier Fuid R:anioyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A N A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAI1.;CAD ADJUSTIw'HT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: xecutive ecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1973,

 4