(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIMi Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District) that:

(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement particularly Rule 1 (Scope), when it assigned and/or permitted employes of another craft to repair the Stevens hump air compressor on December 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22, 1970. Therefore, as a result,

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer H. H. Clark and Signal Helper E. V. Cotcamp at their applicable rates of pay and for a comparable amount of time for the violation cited in part (a) of this claim. (Carrier's File: 1-SG-288)

(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularl willfully, arbitrarily, and deliberately assigned work involving the replacement of electrical wiring and related protective equipment to persons not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement we have with this Carrier. As a result, we now ask that;

 (b) The Carrier be required to pay the Claimants listed below at their time and one-half rates of pay and for an equal number of hours that other than signal employes performed work as cited in part (a) of this claim.

 (c) As a result of the work involved herein not being complete as of this dater, we also request this claim continue until such time as it is disposed of and the work and maintenance thereof is assigned to employes covered under the Signalmen's Agreement:

 H. H. Parker H. H. Clark
 L. P. Greene Gerald Moore
 R. L. Scharfenberger E. V. Cotcamp
 (Carrier's File: 1-SG-292)


_i)~r_·~T,_;V OF ~hARD: Y'he instant doc7cet involves two claims: 'Elie first is for
 work done on an air-compressor on December 8, 9, 16, 17,
 13, 21 and 22, 1970, by employees not covered by the signalmen's agreement. The
 second claim involves wuc:k done on or about June 14, 1971 by employees not
 covered by the agreement, in replacement of electrical wiring. In both cases
 the work involved the car retarder system at Stevens, Kentucky.

        These claims are similar to that in Award No. 19850. In that case

we sustained the claim based on Award No. 9210, 10730. Those awards and numerous
 others clearly established the rule that the Signalmen's Agreement covers main
 tenance of retarder systems. Pursuant to those precedential decisions we find
 the claims herein sustainable.

 We will, therefore, sustain the Claims at the pro rata rat* for the number of hours consumed in the aggregate.

        FI\D_::GS: 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 within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the carrier violated the agreement.


                      A G A R O


        Claims. sustained per Opinion of Board.


                        .' NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTCST:,~·J* Ad~ Executive Secretary


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