(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATENENT CF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the former New York,
 New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company:

 On behalf of Forman R. F. Litton, Signalmen J. J. C1mningbem, R. D. Millet Jr., R. D. Millet Sr., and G. J. Platt, for twelve days pay each account Carrier bought and installed pre-wired relay cases at Needham, Mass, in violation of the Scope of the SigoaLxa's Agreement. fcaee HR.S W6~

The Organization asserts a violation of its Scope Rule which specifically covers "signal circuit wiring" and which, according to the Employees, contains "no exceptions either expressed or implied."

 Although Carrier concedes that the five (5) relay cases were pre-wired, it notes that they were purchased from the mamzfacturer in that condition. It appears, however, that all work necessary to lastal1 the relays, including any necessary wiring, was performed by the Claimants.

 Carrier refers to a 1969 action as clear precedent for its actions - which the Employees label as a citation of "...a violation of a rule as a precedent to allow the Carrier to continue to violate the same rule." In any event, no evidence was presented to offset the Carrier's reference to the 1969 incident.

 Moreover, Carrier specifically refers to that portion of the Scope Rule which limits its applicability to work performed in a shop or in the field, and states that there can be no claim to work performed on equipment which is not owned by the Carrier and that any right of the employees to work on such equipment can not accrue until such time as the equipment is to be installed on Carrier's property.

 The Employees recognize that certain Awards of this Board run contrary to its claim herein, bat place a reliance upon Award 9675, between these parties, stating that it expresses the more sound legal doctrine,


and that the doctrine of stare deciaie dictates a sustaining we do not dispute the legal concepts
 expressed by the Organisation, we are unable to conclude that Award 9675 speaks to the precise issues before us to the point that it requires the weight attributed to it by the Employees.

 The Awards relied upon by Carrier, particularly 14179 and 17259, speak more directly to the point at issue and compel us to conclude that Carrier's action, as described in this Docket, was not prohibited by the Scope Rule.

        FINDIRG3: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June ?1, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1976.