(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Gene=al Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railway that: Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western

 (a) On or about August 12, 1971, Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement when employes of the Communications Department installed a "dragging equipment
(b) Carrier now be required to compensate the following members of Signal Crew #2 an amount of t






OPINION OF BOARD: This is a Third Party case in which the IBEW has filed
 a Submission stating that the Carrier properly assigned the work involved in this dispute to the Electrical Workers' craft.

 The Signalmen contend that the Scope of their Agreement was violated when the Carrier permitted
a "dragging equipment detector" at Dunlap, Iowa. The specific theory is that such a detector is covered by the text of the scope rule which secures to Signalmen the construction, repairing, etc. of: (1) "all appurtenances on or along the railway tracks for the regulation of the movement of trains
 " (Scope, paragraph 1); and (2) "all detector devices connected to or through signal or train control apparatus." (Scope, paragraph 1(1)). (There is no contention that the work is generally recognized as signal work.)
The language "all appurtenances", etc. in the rule, immediately precedes the phrase "as follows"; this phrase then introduces or leads into about twelve subparagraphs which describe a fairly large number of specific items of equipment and systems. The above quoted paragraph 1 (1) is one of the subparagraphs. When language is so structured in a rile, the general language ("all appurtenances", etc.) is given less weight than the specific language in rendering an interpretation of the rule. Also in the instant rule, we find that certain "detector devices" are expressly mentioned in subparagraph (1) and, therefore, such devices are specifically designated


as signal work. We conclude therefore, that whether a scope violation occurred must be determine in subparagraph (1).

 In 1957, the signal forces installed a dragging equipment detector at Ogden, Utah. This detector object, causes a train control signal to display a stop signal to the involved train. This affords opportunity for the train crew to inspect the train. In contrast, the disputed Dunlap detector, when tripped, transmits a signal over a commun then notifies the CTC Operator at Missouri Valley. The Operator can display a stop signal to the tra crew, by radio or phone, of the problem. Since the Dunlap detector produces information which the Di are the same, the Employees say that there is no si-aificant difference between the two installations and that both involve detector devices connected to or through signal recognition of the Ogden detector as signal work must also apply to Dunlap.

 We do not concur. Subparagraph (1) of the rule speaks of "All detector devices connected to or through signal or train control apparatus."
 Emphasis ours.) This language c ear y describes something consisting of mechanical and/or electr people in its operation. We conclude, therefore, that the rule cannot be read so as to treat the Dispatcher and the CTC Operator as the connection to or through signal or train control apparatus. We shall deny the claim.



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






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1974.