(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen of America on the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway:

 (a) That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current Signalmen's working agreement between this Carrier and the Brotherhood, when on September 13, 14, and 17, 1951, at Waukegan, I11., it caused an unauthorized diversion of signal line-wire work to an electrical T. & T. line gang.

 Also when, on September 18, 1951, at North Chicago, 711., it caused an electrical T. & T. line gang to perform signal line-wire work.

 Also when, on September 19, 1951, at West Chicago, I11., it caused an electrical T. & T. line gang to perform signal line-wire work.

 (b) That the following Signal Department employes, to whom this work properlyy accrued under the agreement, be allowed the following overtime earnings to cover the of the Carrier's violation of the Signalmen's working agreement:

 H. C. Dieter, -Signal Foreman - 40 bra., at $3.04 per hour
 D. Schamaker, -Lead. Signalman - 40 bra., at 3.0615 " "
 W. Timm, - Signalman - 40 bra., at 2.9355 " "
 8. Hilger, - Aast. Sig. - 40 bra., at 2.7735 " "
 F. Marshall Jr., - Asst. Sig. - 40 bra., at 2.5215
 R. Rovac, - " " - 40 bra., at 2.5215 " "


er herein, named as respondent, Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Compa~r
 (Carrier). Carrier timely moved that t e ernational Brother odv~o
 Electrical Workers (IBEW) was a third party in interest and being in such
 status it should be served with Third Party Notice. It cited in support
 Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 3. First (J). MM opposed. The Partisan
 Members of the Board deadlocked the raised procedural issue relative to
 perfection of this Board's jurisdiction. The Rational Mediation Board


(no), on petition made to it, named a Neutral Referee to sit with the Board for the purpose of resolving the disputed issue. Following argument of the parties a majority of the Board, as constituted, issued the following Award on June < 25, 1954:

        Notice of oral hearing must be given to the Electrical Workers as well as to the Carrier and the Signalmen.


The Notice issued. IBEW intervened. Due process was satisfied. (NOTE: See, T-C. E. U- v. Union Pacific R. Co., 385 U.S. 157 (1966)) Now, some twenty-three years after the occurrences giving rise to the Claim, the Claim is before us for adjudication on the merits.

 The issue, in this merits adjudication, is whether the work involved is work exclusively reserved to BRS. IBEW and Carrier plead and argue that it is not. All three parties cite a Memorandum Agreement dated July 7, 1947, hereinafter called Tripartite Agreement, which reads, with emphasis supplied:

        TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGmum OF AMERICA, AND IPTEmQATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, PENDING DEFINITE AGREEMENT AS TO WHICH BROTHERHOOD IS TO CONSTRUCT AND/OR MAINTAIN SImAL LINE WIRES.


            It is tentatively Weed between the Elgin i Eastern Railway Company, the Brotherhood of Railroad

        of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical

        Workers that until such time as a definite eement can be

        entered into the above mentioned brotherhoods on the matter

        o w o wilt construct and/or maintain signal line wires on the

        Elgin, ,;oliet and Eastern Railway, a T. & T. forces will be

        allowed to construct any new signal lines and the aigoalmen

        will be allowed to maintain the signal lines, without either

        party making a grievance which would put the Elgin, Joliet

        and Eastern Railway Company to air add on expense account

        onep-arty claiming the other party is doing their work.


        Signed this 7th day of July, 1947.

        For B. of R. S. of A. For E. J. & E. By. Co.

        /a/ David F. Letts /a/ W. K. Waltz

        General Chairman Signal Engineer


        For I. B. of E. W.

          /a/ John H. Barnes

          General Chairman

                    Award Number Page 3


                    Docket Number SG-6700 (NOTE: A subsequent tripartite agreement between the parties, dated

November 19, 1956, was not in being on the Claim dates. Therefore, its
 substance is not material or relevant in our consideration of the 1951
 dispute.)

 The Schedule Agreement between BR.S and Carrier, in effect during the Claim dates, became effective on December 1, 1945. If there exists a conflict between its provisions and the Tripartite Agreement of July 7, 1947, the latter prevails.

 There is no dispute that: (1) the work involved in the instant case is encompassed within the terms of the Tripartite Agreement; and (2) "a definite agreement" had not been entered into at the time of the occurrences alleged in the Claim.

 Giving to the words used in the 1947 Tripartite Agreement their common meaning, we find: (1) the word "allowed," as twice used, connotes permissiveness--not an exclusive contractual right to the work is vested in either BRS or IBFW: (2) the words "without either party (BRS or IM) making a grievance which would put the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company to any additional expense account one party claiming the other party is doing their work" was a contractual bar violated by BRS when it filed the Claim now before us.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the ._
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Baployes 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

        That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

                    Award Number 20378 Page 4

                    Docket Number SO-6700

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJi15TmMT HOARD

                          Br Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 9440

          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of September 1974.
            Dissent to Award 20378, Docket SG-6700


The Majority in Award 20378 has placed a strained interpretation upon the language of the controlling Agreement and thereby errs.

 It is evident from both the Agreement and the present record that prior to the execution of the Agreement both involved groups of employes were contending for exclusive jurisdiction to all work involving signal lines. The parties to the Agreement, in an attempt to reduce the probability of claims by one of the employe representatives because of employes represented by the other performing some signal line work, divided jurisdiction over the work and provided that neither representative would claim an agreement violation because of the employes represented by the other performing work in accordance with such division of jurisdiction. Arty other interpretation, such as that of the present 1dajority, has the effect of holding that the employe parties performed a useless act. Such holding is contrary to accepted rules of contract interpretation.

    Award 20378 is in error and I dissent.


                                                  i_


                                ' W. W. Altus, Jr.

                                      Labor Member