(Brotherhood of Railroad Signaimen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CIAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brother-
::ocd of 'Railroad Signalmen on the Soo Line Railroad Comoany:


hours' overtime pay account Roadmaster C. E. Bommersbach testing high
way crossing signals at Highway #29, Glenwood, Minnesota, on March 21,
1971. /Carrier's File: 900-46-B-104/

OPINION OF BOARD: On Saturday, March 21, 1971 Carrier's Roadmaster
at Glenwood, Minnesota depot received an anony
mous telephone report that the crossing signal at State Highway No.
29 was not operating. The roadmaster proceeded to the crossing and
attempted to check the signals by placing a bar across the rails in
an apparent attempt to shunt the signal's track circuit. This opera
tion proved ineffective because, apparently unknown to the roadmaster,
the crossing in question was protected by a solid state analog con
trol system which cannot be tested with a shunt. Having failed to acti
vate the signal by a shunt, the roadmaster remained at the crossing
site to observe the nexttrain movement. The roadmaster observed that
the signal functioned properly with the next passing train, concluded
that the report of malfunction was in error, and returned to the depot.

Petitioner on behalf of claimant maintains that the actions of the roadmaster constitute testing of signals in violation of the Scope and Classification rules of its Agreement, reproduced below in pertinent part:













Carrier contends that the claim is without merit because there was no demonstrated signal failur the roadmaster's mere observation was not violative of the agreement. In this connection Carrier arg shunting of the analog control system did not constitute "testing."

There is no dispute herein regarding Carrier's perogative, indeed, responsibility to determine i trouble is actually a fault or misoperation. Nor do we pass herein on the question of whether "looki or "inspecting" within the coverage of the agreement in the circumstancesof this case. We do hold th the rails to shunt the reportedly malfunctioning signal the roadmaster performed a testing operation signals which is work accruing to Signalmen under the Scope Rule. Claimant is an employe covered by the Signalmen's Agreement who was available for call. Accordingly, the claim will be sustained.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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








                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:·G~3,
Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, i11inois, this 15th day of Mar^_h 1074.