(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company:

For an amount of money, including overtime payments, equal to the amount now being expended to ACI Corp. for the use of its employes to maintain the ACI equipm leased from ACI Corp., or an amount of money, including overtime payments, which would have been pai duties been properly assigned to one, whichever is the larger amount. The money claimed should be distributed to all P&PU signal employes in the following manner:

Assistant Signal Maintainer L. C. Hendon, who is the senior Assistant, has been obviously deprived of promotion to Signal Maintainer because of the contracting and should be paid the difference between his rate and that of Signal Maintainer throughout the clai
After claim on behalf of Mr. Hendon has been satisfied, the residue of claim money should be equally distributed to all P&PU signal employes, including Mr. Hendon--namely, Messrs. R. H. Greenway, L. 0. Crotts, R. C. Dillow, L. C. Hendon, and W. W. Lloyd.

Claim is retroactive 60 days from date (January 28, 1972) of this letter and continuing until the violation is corrected. /Carrier's File: A-TC 49-72/

OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier leases from ACI Systems Corporation certain
automatic car identification equipment, which said
Corporation installed and maintains on Carrier's property. Ownership
of the equipment remains in ACI Corporation.

The instant claim avers that use of ACI employes to maintain the equipment is a violation of the organizations; Brotherhood of Railway Airline and Steamship Clerks,

i



T-C Division; Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Railway Employes Department, AFL - CIO.

We have studied the record herein including many Awards, all denying similar claims. Essentially the same issue was presented in denial Award 19259 (Devine) wherein we stated:



vie find in the instant case nothing to warrant a result contrary to that in Award 19259. See .Aso. Awards 19386, 19694, and 19854. Accordingly we shall dismiss the claim.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Laboi ..".ct, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an







                        Ay Order of nird Division


ATTEST: jrr& Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1975.