(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

Claim on behalf of each man in signal construction gang, R. D. Johnson, C. J. Temple, D. Martin, H. Holdampf, J. Sottile, A. Klein, J. Fox, E. Racyonlski, A. Bariciano (letter dated December 2, 1972):

 That on October 4th 1972, Signalman James Sottile, headquarters Charlotta Avenue, Freight house, Hicksville, New York 11801, Gang 53, was ordered to deliver Electronics Equipment (track circuits) to the Clavier Corporation, Huntington, New York. Upon his arrival at Clavier Corporation it was discovered that the aforementioned equipment, manufactured by M.I.P. Company, a subsidiary of Safetrain Corporation, delivered the Long Island Railroad Signal Department, was being installed in Signal cases that are intended for use on the Amityville, Copiague, Lindenhurst, Grade elimina`ions.

 As this practice is in violation of the scope rule, the General Committee demands Carrier pay each man in the signal construction gang (See Attachment "A") eight (8) hours at time and one-half the pro-rata rate, as long as violation continues.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier had placed an order with an outside supplier,
 the Clavier Corporation, to furnish signal instrument cases to be installed on the Amityville, Copiague, Lindenhurst Grade Elimination project. On October deliver track circuits manufactured by M.I.P. Company, which had been delivered to Carrier's Signal
Petitioner contends that the wiring of the signal cases by an outside contractor was in violation of the scope rule of the Agreement. It is argued that the units in question were in possession of the Signal Department and then were given this situation from other related disputes involving equipment purchased, which have been dealt with by this Board. The Organization also asserts that Carrier is incorrect in its statement that it always purchased preassembled components; it is s in question at every grade crossing elimination in the past.


In this instance, Carrier asserts it acted as a purchasing agent for its prime contractor, the Clavier Corporation, which does not change its long established right and practice of buying preassembled components. Carrier states that the scope rule does not provide that Signal Department employes will manufacture equipment and that its past practice has been to buy pre-manufactured and assembled components and equipment and have the equipment installed by its own signal employes. Carrier argues that the scope rule encompasses "installation and maintenance" and "repair and adjust





























The Scope Rule in this dispute is general and does not per se reserve the work described to employes covered by the Agreement. The exclusive right to the work in history of system-wide practice and custom; this evidence has not been presented by Petitioner and has been denied by Carrier. The Organization cited Award 6664 in its argument before the Board as an example of a closely related factual situation. In that case, however, we said: "...That the work of


fitting up and wiring instrument houses in C.T.C. systems has been customarily and traditionally performed by Signalmen on this property is established by the practice shown by the employes." That showing has not been made in this dispute. In Award 12553, also cited by Petitioner, we reviewed prior awards dealing with factory wired equipment and stated, inter alia: "It appears to be the consensus of the awards that seniority rights to work does not attach until the material or equipment upon which the work is to be performed is once delivered to the Carrier." In the instant dispute the material upon which the work was to be performed was the finished assembly and the mere receipt and forwarding of the track circuits for final assembly does not change the basic concept expressed in Award 12553. It must also be noted that there has been a long line of awards dealing with substantially similar factual situations as that herein, including, among others, 5044, 9604, 13703, 15577 and 16124, which have held for the Carriers therein.

 Accordingly, since there is no evidence in the record establishing a relevant practice on this property supportive of Petitioner's position, and since we concur in the reasoning in the awards cited, the claim must be denied. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the procedural issues raised by the Carrier in view of our conclusion.



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 1975.
              Dissent to Award 207,:3, Docl-et °,G-20573


    The 1'ajority has here attempted to distinmxish that w~lich. to those


!nvolv:;iti: The _w~ fan:i,, _ ·1 and 'lilt: ;1rinciples
 who are a '^o·,:.: c~a-_·:. :.nt r
 e.^bodied _n `.'-nerr-in:_ : ~cr:c.en;; ...,r:rd.s ~: ~i):w pot-d. :is Jnditi·i
 lY·ishable, and ;,o 1L-.,?n ~: .;,.^· `;h c'·:. -.o -,he sa·ee neool liJ;erred. ?c :e o. ,.::cse e:ao C-
 1-c- ;. a ::3.jovity number ^<. .o :fir 1i:o se . -~opie, arid it. :?s onJ--'er this reason that ;,hc l.:ajori~-'s airardis.rot a blemish uuon it.

    I dissent.


                                      ~i. .'. A1tus, _''r._,/I

                                      Labor ilemcer