(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Baltimore and Ohio
 Railroad Company that:

(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope, seniority, promotion, hours of service, bulletining, and assignment April 22, 1971, it arranged for or otherwise permitted the Henkels

and McCoy Construction Company employes to install 19, 29, 37-conductor underground cable for si

Post 1, Grey's Ferry Tunnel in Philadelphia, Pa., to a point approximately sixteen miles of ther


(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate all employes listed below, and all other employes who entered these gangs after April 22, 1971, while the Henkels and McCoy Construction Company is working on the installation of this cable, at their respective overtime rates of pay for all man hours worked by the Henkels and McCoy Construction Company employes on the installat basis, beginning April 22, 1971, and continuing so long as these outside employes perform this work;





















OPINION OF BOARD: On February 26, 1971 the Organization was informed
 that underground cable for signal circuits was to
 be installed along Carrier's right-of-way from Grey's Ferry Tunnel in
 Philadelphia, Pa. to a point about sixteen miles west of there. This
 project was occasioned by a power shortage in Philadelphia; as a result
 the Philadelphia Electric Company determined that it would be desirable
 to build a 220 KV line along and above the Carrier's right-of-way as
 described above. Carrier agreed to permit the construction, with caveats
 as follows. The high voltage line projected presented an immediate dan
 ger to the signal and communication facilities along the 16 mile stretch;
 to correct this problem such facilities had to be modified by being re
 moved from the pole lines and buried in special cable underground or
 removed entirely. Further it was necessary to rewire the signal houses
 and make connections with the projected underground cable. As part of
 the arrangement the underground cable was subsequently installed by the
 Henkels and McCoy Construction Company under contract let by the Phila
 delphia Electric Power Company. This new cable did not become the
 property of the Carrier, nor was it under Carrier's control until the
 work had been completed. Carrier used its signal employes to perform
 the work required in rewiring the signal houses and making the connec
 tions to the underground cable.

 The Organization claims that the work of installing the underground cable was recognized signal work cites the Scope Rule as controlling, and specifically the last paragraph which states: "No employees other than those classified herein will be required or permitted, except in an emergency, to perform any of the signal work described herein..." Since no emergency existed, Petitioner argues that Carrier violated the Agreement in contracting out the work.

 Carrier's principal argument is that the work in question was not covered by the Agreement. Carrier asserts that it had no need to replace its signal wires and the only reason for the project was the interference which the Power Company's installation would create. The work complained of was not a part of any program designed to improve Carrier's signal or communication system but was performed solely for the benefit of the Power Company so that it could install its 220 KV power line. The Carrier avers that the responsibility for installing the new buried cable was solely with the Power Company who paid for all the work; Carrier had no interest or control over the project until it was accepted. Carrier concludes that since the Scope Rule is applicable only to work described which is under Carrier's control, and is for its benefit, the rule was not violated.


In Award 19718 and a series of prior Awards, this Board has taken the position that Claims in related disputes did not have merit when the evidence did not establish that the disputed work was within Carrier's control and hence within the scope of the Agreement. In closely related disputes we have recently dealt with the same issue as that herein, in Award 20156 and also it was reviewed extensively in Award No. 2 of Public Law Board 747. In the latter Award it was said:



A number of other issues were raised in this dispute which we deem require no comment in view of our findings on the principle issue. Although Petitioner alludes to the possib dispute, no evidence was presented to support the hypothesis. The facts seem clear and unequivocal; the work was contracted out by the Power Company, not the Carrier, and for the benefit directly of the Power Company, not the Carrier. Under those circumstances, there cannot be a violation of the Scope Rule in the contracting and the claim must be denied.



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



        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEW BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST ,
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of June 1974.