(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISP=: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern
 Pacific Transportation Company that:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company has violated and continues to violate the Agreem the Employes of the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effecti by assigning work properly belonging to the Western Seniority District to the Division Inspector who the San Joaquin Seniority District.

 (b) Mr. Balison be allowed compensation in addition to
 regular compensation previously allowed for three hours each day at
 his pro rata rate for the following days: February 22, 23, 24, 25,
 26; March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,10,11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23,
 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31; April 1, 2, 19, 1971, and continuing for
 each working day until the work which properly belongs to the West
 ern Seniority District Division Inspector is properly assigned to
 him. _ _
 /Carrier's File: SIG 152-287/

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that the Carrier violated the Agree
 ment by assigning signal work across seniority
 district boundaries. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that
 Division Signal Inspector (DS I) Minge, of the San Joaquin Seniority
 District, performed work which should have been performed by DSI
 Balison, of the Western Seniority District.

 The claim presented to this Board involves work performed by DSI Minge (1) in the Office of the Signal Supervisor at Bakersfield, California, and (2) within t Polk), which is part of the Western Seniority District. Item 2 of the foregoing, if established of record, would appear to involve an assignment of work across Seniority District boundaries. However, the Carrier objects to the consideration of item 2 on the ground that the claim presented and handled on the property involved only the "office duties" referred to in item 1; and that no mention was made of work performed away from the Bakersfield Office, as referred to


in item 2, until thirty (30) days after Carrier's final decision to disallow the claim. Carrier objects on the further ground that the undated letter of DSI Minge, which brought item 2 into the dispute, is vague and fatally defective for lack of specificity in regard to item 2. The pertinent part of the Minge letter reads as follows:

The foregoing statement of Mr. Minge indicates that he was sent physically to the Western District to obtain inventories affecting that district; however, the claim as initially submitted and progressed by the Employes, in letters dated April 19, May 27, and July 15, 1971, referred only to "office duties" amounting to three (3) hours a day. The claim made no reference of any kind to Mr. Minge's physical entry into the Western District to obtain inventories. Likewise, in the General Chairman's August 5, 1971 correspondence, it is clear that the claim presented and handled on the property was confined to "office duties". We also note that the quoted statement of Mr. Minge does not indicate whether one or more trips into the Western District were made, nor does it provide any date or location regarding the referred to trip and/or trips. Consequently, both of Carrier's objections to item 2 are well taken and, accordingly, we shall not consider the issue raised by that item.

 In resolving the issues raised by the "office duties" performed by DSI Minge, referred to in for rules are pertinent;








The background of this dispute dates back to April 1, 1964, at which time the Carrier realigned the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Division Superintendent, located at Bakersfield, California, to include the Fresno to Polk part of the Stockton District, Western Division. As a result of this realignment, the jurisdiction and supervision of signal facilities within the realigned territory fell to the San Joaquin Signal Supervisor headquartered at Bakersfield. The parties agree that no change in Seniority Districts (Rule 36) was made in connection with the realignment. (However, on the property, the Organization charged that Carrier's reasons for denying the claim constitutes an attempt to unilaterally make a change in Seni that DSI Minge's "office duties" include work on plans for Signal Department projects on the territo which is under the supervisor of the San Joaquin Signal Supervisor. In the words of the Carrier -

The parties disagree, however, on the consequence of DSI Minge's performance of the above mentioned work. The Petitioner cites Third Division Awards Nos. 4667, 10125, 11582, et al, as well as the February 7, 1965 Agreement, for the principle that work may not be taken across seniority District boundaries and, hence, an agreement violation is established by the mere showing that work on signal plans for the Western District was performed by an employee with seniority on another Seniority District. Contrarily, the Carrier calls attention to Awards No. 24 and 25, Public Law Board No. 15, from this same property, asserting that such Award Carrier's favor. Carrier also says there is no agreement provision which prohibits DSI Mirage, an employee who holds seniority within the San Joaquin Seniority District, from performing the disputed duties at Bakersfield, a location within the confines of such Seniority District.


The Awards cited by Petitioner would prohibit the 1964 transfer of "office duties" concerning Wester the San Joaquin Division and the subsequent performance of such duties by a signal employee on the latter Division. We are not persuaded by these authorities, however, because later authorities have ruled differently. For example, in Award


For like and comparable rulings see Third Division Awards Nos. 14825, 16501, and 16686. See also the interpretation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement by Decision Nos. 43, 124, and 191 of Special Board of Adjustment 605.

 Turning now to the Awards cited by Carrier, Awards 24 and 25, we note the Petitioner's argument that the claims in these Awards were denied because of insufficient evidence. We agree that these Awards conveniently lend themselves to this interpretation and, therefore, we shall not treat them a come now to Carrier's contention that nothing in the Agreement prohibits DSI Minge from performing t Bakersfield, since this location is within the confines of the San Joaquin Seniority District on which he holds seniority. With this contention we concur. The claim appears to be predicated on the


theory that the agreement provisions in Rule 35 (and perhaps 36) prohibited the transfer of "office duties" that occurred in 1964. We find no language in the agreement on which to base such a theory and we shall therefore deny the claim. We note in conclusion that our rulings herein do not in any way pass on the merits of a physical entry into a Seniority District by an employee from another Seniority District such as the entry ind set out in the second paragraph of this opinion.



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








ATTEST: .~G·GfI.
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of March 1974.