(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE;


STATEMENT OF CLAIM;



(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope and Rule 8 (1), when it used an employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to replace a signal lamp in the switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio, on Thursday, December 23, 1971.

(b) The Carrier now pay Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar two and seven tenths (2.7) hours at his overtime rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a).



(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope and Rule 8 (1), when it used an employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to replace a signal lamp in the switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio, on Wednesday, February 9, 1972.

(b) The Carrier now pay Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar two and seven-tenths (2.7) hours at his overtime rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a).



(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope and Rule 8 (1), when it used employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to replace signal lamps in the switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio, on Wednesday, February 16, 1972, and Saturday, February 19, 1972.

(b) The Carrier now pay Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar five and seven-tenths (5.7) hours at his overtime rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a).



OPINION OF BOARD: The Claims herein concern the replacement of in
dicator lights on a switchtender's shanty on Car
rier's property at Portsmouth, Ohio on various dates. Companion claims
to this dispute, involving the identical work at the same location,
were processed by this Board in Docket Number SG-20202. The Board in
Award Number 20528 found that Petitioner had failed to meet its burden
of proof and denied the claims presented in Docket Number SG-20202.
The record in the instant dispute contains no new material evidence
which would persuade us to change our view as expressed in the earlier
case. For this reason we find Award 20528 to be controlling and must
deny the Claims herein.





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: &4U/! P
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April 1975.