(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

(a) The Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the Company and by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) and particularly the Scope Rule, Rules 5, 16, and 70, when it assigned or permitted employee not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to t to Yuma CTC control panel.

 (b) Coderman R. W. Treon be allowed compensation for a call of two hours and forty minutes at his overtime rate for June 23, 1969, and July 1, 1969, for loss of earnings suffered due to violation of the agreement when he was not called to perform his regular assigned duties. (Carrier's File: SIG 152-261)

 OPINION OF BOARD: A train graph provides a permanent record of certain signal
 position indications and train movements through a designated section of a centralized traffic control territory. Certain information is marked on the graph by means of an electronically operated ink pen which automatically records the relative position of signals located at the end of each siding track represented on a control panel. The graph paper is marked and calibrated in time increments of two minutes each, moving three inches to the hour. The graph paper is driven by means of a drive roller which moves it under the automatic pen and across a hard surface.

 The visible portion of the 'train graph lies horizontally on a table top. After the visible portion of the graph passes over the writing surface, it extends between a drive roller andra pressure-idler roller. There is approximately three hours of on the graph paper which is not visible during the time it is passing between the drive roller and
This dispute arose when, on two days; train dispatchers disengaged the graph from the drive rollers and partially removed the train graph from the machine which results in a disengagement of the mechanism for a period of time.

 The Organization alleged a violation of its Scope Rule which specifies that the Agreement covers, among other things, work or service performed on centralized traffic control systems.
                    Docket Number SG-19129


There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the train graph is part of a centralized traffic control machine. Accordingly, the Organization urges that the Scope Rule is specific in nature and that no showing of job performance
Upon initial consideration, it appears that the Organization's position may be well taken in tha (Abler). However, the Board does not resolve the dispute on those grounds.

 The Carrier notes that the Organization urges a different claim before this Board than the one urged on the property. A review of the. entire record indicates that the Organization does not base its claim upon train dispatchers removing paper (and consequently disengaging the Uraph) but the claim appears to deal with the restoration of the graph at a later time. Tit order for the train graph to coincide with the exact time, it must be reset after it is disengaged, and the Organi position" falls within the Scope Rule definiLinn of maintenance and/or repair.

 A review of the claim, as processed on the property, compels the Board to determine that the concept of maintenance or repair, vis-a-vis restoration of the time graph to "on-time position" was not adequately placed before the Carrier to allow it to respond thereto.

 In the initial claim, the Organization alleged that the Carrier assigned and/or permitted employees not covered by the Signalman's Agreement (train dispatchers) to tamper wi disengaging the graph from the drive rollers and partially removing same from the machine. Although the claim designated the Claimant herein as responsible for all work connected with the maintenance, repair and testing of the machine, it made no reference to subsequent restoration of the machine to its appropriate "on-time position."

 In the Company's initial denial it admitted that the dispatcher, at times, releases the drive roller mechanism to lessen the tension on the train graph in order to unroll the graph. -,

 In its appeal, the Organization again cited the disengaging of the machine and stated that "repairs" and""testing" is work which should be performed, not by the train dispatcher, but by tire signalman. Again, nn reference was made to restoration of the on-time position.

 Subsequent to the final denial by the-Carrier on the property, the Organization submitted to the Carrier a statement from the Claimant. In that document, he stated:

 W
                  Award Number 19878 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-19129


        "They (dispatchers) then remove at least part of the recorded graph from between the drive roller and the prus,,ure-idler roller to examine it, after which they attempt to put it back, but when they do, the time on the graph Is always off from five to fifteen minutes, compared with the. Standard Clock which hangs above and behind each CTC Machine,"


In the penultimate paragraph of Claimant's same statement, he says that, "If the time of the graph is disturbed, and attempts made to reset it, this clearly is an infringement of our Scope kuLe, at the very least." The covering letter from the Organization also makes reference to disturbing the time on the graph when the machine i, tamperec with, rut, it mint he noted that the Organization never suggested, on the property, that the train dispatchers reset the machine. We feel chat such lack oC ,ll lugatiou, in that regard, is crucial to our conclusion.

 It has been suggested that -lie Claimant's statement referred to above is not properly before this Board for review because it was submitted subsequent to the final denial of the Carrier on the property. This Iteferce has receutly noted that documents received prior to notification of intention to file a submission with this Boar on the property. (See Docket No. SC-19013),

 Nonetheless, while the document is properly before the Board, the question still remains as to whether or not the issue of restoration of the "on-time position" was clearly raised on the property. We feel that it was not. Although there was innuendo in the later stages of the handling of the matter on the property, as stated above, it was never specifically designated that the dispatch employees on June 23, 1.969 and/or July 1, 1969 actually reset the machine, but rather the claim appears to be that they tampered with or otherwise disturbed the graph.

 Under the Scope Rule before us, it does not appear that a disengaging of the machine constitutes a violation_'whereas a restoration to the "on-time position" by other employees may well fall within the prohibitions of the Scope Rule.

 In reaching this conclusion,. this Board is not tirnmindful of the decision in Award 17665 (Glad and the claim sustained. In that decision the hoard determined that the (:rC machine required "maintenance" to bring it into conformity with "standard time", and that such "maintenance" was within the Scope I\ulo. However, in that case the claim specifically stated that the violation of the Scope I;,ile was accomplished train graph. Such an allegation is not before us in this case. If .it were, the result herein may have been different.
                Award Number 19878 Page 4

                Docket Number SG-19129


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment roard, after giving the
 parties to this dispute clue 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, a3 approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the A<`ju·:Lmnnt Board !gas jurisdLction over the dispute involvoi herein; and

        That the Agroo·itent was not violated.


                      A 1,1 A R D


        Claim is denied.


                        NATION:^.L 1,,ATLROAD ADJIISTI·lEW BOARD

                        By Order (if Third l'ivision


ATTEST: &,AII/

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of July 1973,