(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ( (Chesapeake District)

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

(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate Agreements the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company has with the Signalmen's Organization, particularly Rule 1 ( Limits) of the current Signalmen's schedule Agreement; and Article III, Section i of the February 7, 1965 (Stabilization of Employment) Agreement, when, on or about Februar diverted or otherwise removed work from its signal employes assigned to this district; in particular, work involved in improvements and/or maintenance of the Carrier's MD Cabin interlocking plant limits located in Cincinnati, Ohio. As a result of such action, we now ask that:

 (b) The Carrier be required to compensate employes named below at their applicable pro rata rates of pay and for a comparable amount of time that other than C&O signal employes were allowed to perform the work cited in par continuing violation, we request that said claim continue until such time as the work involved in this dispute is completed and the Carrier takes the necessary corrective action to return such work to the jurisdiction of employes covered in



(c) The Carrier be required to compensate the above-named employes at their applicable rates of pay and in a comparable amount of time, including calls, that other than C&0 signal employes devote to maintenance and/or repairs of signal facilities cited in part (a) of this claim; such labor to be determined after all work involved is completed and/or returned to C&O signal employes. (Carrier's File: 1-SG-289)


                Claim No. 2


          (a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate Agreements, including past practice, this Carr Limits) of the current Signalmen's schedule Agreement; and Article III, Sec. i of the February 7, 1965 (Stabilization of Employment) Agreement when, on or about May 4, 1971, the Carrier allowed signal work of improving the Gast Street signal facility to be assigned to persons who are not covered under provisions of the above-referredto Agreements. As a result of such


          (b) The Carrier be required to compensate signal employes named below at their applicable pro rata rates of pay and for a comparable amount of time that other are allowed in the future to perform work cited is part (a) of this claim. Due to this being a continuing violation, as the work in question has not been completed, we request said claim to continue until such time as the work is completed and/or the Carrier takes the necessary corrective action to return said work to the jurisdiction of its signal employes:


          H. D. Hizer RR ID No. 2280150 D. L. HelmintollerRR ID No. 2230281

          R. C. Ervin " 2216286 Bryant Rushford 2258121

          Gilbert Cornwell 2261223 L. T. Goins 2280454

          R. L. Kelley " 230537 E. H. Adkins 231111

          W. R. Allen " 2610391 R. L. McCulley 2611724


                      \ (Carrier's File: 1-SG-291)


          OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute in this matter involves Carrier's

          actions, in conjunction with three other Carrier's,

          in expanding and modernizing certain facilities at Cincinatti, Ohio.


          Claim 1 involves the installation of a new interlocking facility and related facilities for two track circuits which extended about 410 feet onto B & 0 property and 20 feet on Carrier's property. These circuits had previously, by Agreement dated 1907, been serviced and maintained by Carrier's Signal Department employes. The new installation and maintenance was per Railroad, in accordance with a new Agreement, dated February 9, 1971 (which supplanted the 1907 Agreement) between the Carrier, B & 0, CNO & TP, and C.U.T.


          We find no merit in Petitioner's position with respect to Claim #l, since the new arrangement involved the return of work to B & 0 employes which had been ceded by that Carrier in 1907. We have taken the position in many Awards, going back to Award 643 in 1938,


0
              Award Number 20181 Page 3

              Docket Number SG-19835


that a Carrier has no right to force another Carrier against its will to permit work by the first Carrier on the second Carrier's property. In other words, the Scope Rule cannot extend to work that does not belong to Carrier.

 In its allegations on both Claims, Petitioner refers to a violation of Article III of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement. Since there is no discussion of the applicability of that Agreement in the submission and no indication that this matter was timely raised on the property, we shall dismiss this contention (see Award 19370).

 3y Agreements between Carrier, the CNO & TP and C.U.T., dated November 1933, which superseded earlier agreements going back to 1902, Carrier was given the responsibility to construct and maintain certain signal facilities at with its own tracks area referred to in Claim #2. At about 1929, Carrier constructed a facility, termed an interlocking plant, at this location, Gest Street, on its property, which included two tilting target signals. From that time until the 1971 Agreement between the four Carriers was implem two tilting target signals had been performed by Carrier's signal employes. It should be noted that the B & 0 does not operate at this crossing and its closest trackage is some distance away, apparently several blocks at least. In Agreement between the four carriers, referred to above, the two tilting target signals were retired part of the overall new interlocking operation, all work performed by B.&0. employes, who also maintain the entire facility.

 The record indicates that certain other employes of Carrier did participate in the work involved in
The Organization argues that this work was improperly removed from the Carrier's employes in violation of the Scope Rule; that the labor agreement including the Scope Rule antedates the 1971 agreement among the Carriers ceding the work to B&0 employes; and that prior Awards of this Board support its position. Carrier urges that it was impractical to have the work of installing and maintaining the new facility performed in more than one Carrier; and most importantly that under many Board Awards signal work within a joint interlocking plant belongs exclusively to the signal forces of the
              Award Number 20181 Page 4

              Docket Number SG-19835


responsibility for the maintenance of such plant, in this case B & 0 employes. It is noted that Carrier's argument on the impract'.cality of dividing the work best an unsupported assertion.

 We note that both Carrier and the Organization cite the same Awards in support of opposite conclusions. After careful examination of all these prior awards, with somewhat differing factual basis, involving the same parties Award 19369, we said:

        "Numerous disputes have been before the Board where two or more rail Carriers have found it necessary and desirable to enter into contracts for the performance by one of them of a joint or mutual duty or in other ways to share work required to be performed. It has been consistently held that the work to be performed under such circumstances falls to the Ca and its employees who by reason of such Agreements between the Carriers, have the superior right or

        tual duty to perform it "


        In Award 17160, we said:


        "As a general proposition, the signal work within a joint interlocking plart belongs exclusively to the signal forces of the carrier having the contractual responsibility for the maintenance of such plant."


In Award 11002, involving the installation and maintenance of signal facilities by an agreement which preceded the contract between respondent Carrier and the Organization, we said:

        " ..The work to be performed under these circumstances falls to the Carrier and its employes who by reason of such agreements between Carriers, have the superior or contractual duty to perform it.


        The contract of 1924 between the two Carriers is inherently different from a contract between a and some third party where the Carrier seeks to remove from under the contract work which it must pe obligations to perform when the agreement with the Signalmen was executed."

              Award Number 20181 Page 5

              Docket Number SG-19835


One of the early Awards, upon which many subsequent decisions were based is Award 3450. In that when work was relinquished to another railroad. This conclusion was based on the fact that the work in dispute had been given to Carrier under an Agreement with the other railroad at a date preceding the Agreement with the Organi the claim was sustained in & dispute between the B & 0 and the Signalmen with the same logic that the Agreement with the Organization predated the new agreement between Carriers diverting the work. In that Award we said;

        "In cases of this nature, closely conflicting questions of fact and interpretation should be res if possible, in favor of the employes of the railroad on whose property the work is to be done. Employes of one railroad should not be permitted to perform work on another railroad to the detriment of the latter 's employes unless it can be clearly shown t they are entitled to do the work."


It is noted that the terms "contractual right" or "superior right" as used in prior awards are ill defined and do not adequately distinguish between contracts among Carriers or between the Carrier and the Organization. It is our judgment that both such types of agreements have equal weight; the agreement which is first entered into relating to the work must be controlling.

 Based on the facts in Claim #2 and the reasoning expressed in our prior Awards, we are of the opinion that Claimants herein were deprived of their right to improve the Gest Street Signal facilities. Their Agreement with Carrier, as well as many years of practice, predated the 1971 agreement among C employees; this action constituted a violation of the Scope Rule of the applicable Agreement.

 We note that the B & 0 and the C & 0 have the same overall management. It is a well established principle in contemporary labormanagement relationships that it An extension of this principle is that employers generally discuss contemplated changes in operations with their unions before the fact, when such changes impinge on employes contractual rights, in an effort to avoid controversy; case, in our judgement, the entire conflict might have been avoided, including the substantial attendent expenditures of time and money.
                    Award Nurber 20181 °&2e 6

                    Docket 7PuTber SO-10835


As indicated above we shall deny Claim A1. We shall sustain Claim A2 with the understanding that B & 0 signal employees have the overall resoonsibilitv for the interlocking facility. Therefore the remedy in Part (b) of Claim 42 is restricted to the work involved in the retirement of the two tilting target signals and only new constriction, if any, at those locations.

        FTMr?:a: The Third Division of the Adilistment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the -arties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the °"moloyes involved in this dispute are resvectively Carrier and Emploves within the meaning of the Railwav Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1034:

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction over the disvite involved herein: and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


Claim A1 is denied; Claim 42 is sustained to the extent provided in the Opinion.

                        RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ 15TWRl' BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATT°ST: I
        Fxecutive Secretary


Dated at Chic&=, Illinois, this 15th day of March 1974.
                                    Serial No. 281


            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                  THIRD DIVISION


            INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO AWARD N0. 20181


                DOCKET N0. SG-19835


NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 NAME OF CARRIER: The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 (Chesapeake District)

 Upon application of the representatives of the Employes involved in the above Award, that this Division interpret the same in light of the dispute between the parties as to the meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:

 After careful review of the petition of the Organization for an interpretation of Awards 20181 and 20511, and Carrier's response thereto, we find that the Organization's understanding of the intent of the two Awards is erroneous.

 We indicated in both of the Awards a careful restriction of the work in dispute to that which related only to the replacement and subsequent maintenance ". . . invo other work in the overall project accruing to Claimants. As we examine the record herein, it seems that the work has been adequately defined in Carrier's letter dated April 3, 1975 as that involving eight signals which replaced the tilting target signals at Gest Street together with certain specified appurtenances. It was not our intention to include within the remedy any other work on the interlocking facility, and certainly not "all signals and related equipment between C & 0 Mile Post 0 and Mile Post 8.2", or work on C & 0 No. C-1 and C-2 tracks between Gest Street and C & 0 Mile Post 0.

 Referee Irwin M. Lieberman, who sat with the Division, as a neutral member when Award No. 20181 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: ~lL~IV,''~.

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of February 1976.