(Brotherhood of Railroad Signnl.m~n PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

 Western Transportation Company:

Claim No. 1
(a) on or about November 20, 1972, the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rules 2(d), 16(a) and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Mason City territory, when the Carrier assigned supplemental overtime to signal maintainer L. E. Koppenhaver, repairing the auto flags at Des Moines Street, Webster City, Iowa instead of using the leader signal maintainer, J. W. Braden, whom directs the work of the above named maintainer.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate J. 'v7. Braden for 2 hours and 40.minutes at his overtime rate, which is the amount of time consumed by L. E...Koppenhaver performing the above work.

 Claim No. 2
(a) On December 6, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rul Understanding on the Mason City territory, when the Carrier assigned supplemental overtime repairing the Main Street crossing signals at Rockwell, Iowa to signal maintai signal maintainer, J. W. Braden, whom under rule 2(d) directs the work of the above named maintainer.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate J. l7. Braden for 2 hours and 45 minutes, the amount of time consurned by P. J. Penner, performing the above work.

 Claim No. 3
(a) On Decelaber 6, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rules 2(d) and 16(a), Understanding on the Mason City territory, when the Carrier assigned supplemental overttae repairing signal 7#2 on the West Plant at Mason City to signal maintainer P. J. Penner, whom under rule 2(d) should have been directed to do so by the leader signal maintainer assigned to the territory.
                  Docket Number SG-20829


(b) Carrier now be required to compensate J. W. Braden, leader signal maintainer, assigned to the territory, for 3 hours and 45 minutes, the amount of time consumed by P. J. Penner, performing the above work. ZC-arrier's File: 79-24-2)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein is one of a series of related
 cases all involving the assignment of overtime
 after the consolidation of certain Signal Maintenance territories.
 Carrier, in its submission and rebuttal before this Board stated that
 the circumstances and issues herein were similar to those considered by
 this Board in Awards 20°01, 20803 and 20804, particularly in Award 20804.
 The Organization concurs. In all of those disputes we found that the
 Leader Signal Maintainer should have been accorded the overtime calls
 based on the language of the January 16, 1941 Agreement. The doctrine
 of res judicata is applicable herein and the claims must be sustained
 for the reasons developed in detail in Award 20801.

        FINDIT1GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

        That the Agreement was violated.


        e

                  A W A R D


        Claims sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:_ A/


Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of December 1975.