(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nash
ville Railroad Company that:

(a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope, when, on September 27, 1971, and October 4, 1971, persons other than signal employes were used at or near Moran, Tenn., and at or near Holts Corner, Tenn., to install meter bases, conduit and wires used exclusively for operation of Carrier's signal system.

(b) Carrier should pay to Signal Maintainer C. K. Armstrong additional compensation equal to twenty-four (24) hours at his overtime rate. (Carrier's File: G-304-12)

OPINION OF BOARD: On the claim dates Carrier utilized employes in the
positions of Road Electricians to install certain
electrical power feeds (a meter base, conduit and wires) for the use
of commercial electric power. By letter of November 24, 1971 the instant
claim was filed by the Organization in behalf of Claimant C. K. Armstrong
alleging that the installation of power feeds from commercial lines was
vested in the Signalmens Craft by virtue of the Scope Rule of the applic
able agreement.

The claim was processed without resolution on the property and now comes to us for disposition. Inasmuch as the electricians had an interest in the outcome the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, representing Carriers' electrical employees was invited to participate as a third party to this dispute and has presented a statement of its position on the record for our consideration.

Turning to the merits of the instant claim, we note that the cited Scope Rule reads in pertinent part as follows:









While "power or other lines" are listed inter alia among the work performed by employees there a clear and express reservation of this work to signal employees to the exclusion of others. Accordingly under well established rules of construction followed by this Board we must look beyond the Rule to custom, practice and tradition for the requisite exclusivity. See Awards 10615, 10931 et al.

Close examination of the record herein shows no exclusive performance of the work in question by the Signal employees or any other craft. Indeed, the record shows that over the years such installation has been performed by signal employees, electrical employees of Carrier, (sometimes in combination) and by employees of outside contractors. Such inconsistency hardly meets the requirement of exclusivity which must be shown in such cases. In these circumstances we have no recourse but to deny the claim herein.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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: G

~Zecutive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1975.