(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company:

 (a) Carrier violated the current agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Chi Company when on November 22, 1972, Carrier called signal maintainer at Sussex, Mr. L. Drahos, account 482's extra and way freight extra stopped for signal 738, instead of the leader maintainer P. E. Singletary.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Mr. Singletary for amount of four and one-half hours (4 1/2) at the leader signal maintainer's rate, the time sent LCarrier's file: 79-8-114/

 OPINION OF BOARD: On November 22, 1972, Carrier called a Signal Maintainer
 (instead of the Leading Signal Maintainer) for overtime work in their territory. Claimant insists that such action constituted a violation of Rules 2(d) and 16(a) as well as a January 16, 1941 Memorandum of Understanding - and past practice.

 Rule 2(d) defines a "Leading Signal Maintainer" and Rule 16(a) provides that, unless registered abse
The 1941 Memorandum of Understanding has specific reference to Mason City; and as such, may not control this dispute. Awards 20801, 20803, and 20804 considered similar claims by the Organization, and sustained them because of their geographic origin, and the specific wording of the "Mason City" document. As noted, however, those Awards would not appear to be pre-q cedential to our consideration, which deals with a territory not including Mason City.

 Moreover, the Employees seem to recognize the problems inherent in reliance upon the 1941 Memorandum, because they urge that said document was the basis for the origination and continuation of the practice on other territories.

 Because the Memorandum deals specifically with one geographic area, it may be argued that the parties intended different results in other areas. However, notwithstanding that contention, we feel that it would be


appropriate to consider past practice to ascertain if, in fact, Carrier has uniformly applied a similar application in other areas. But, as has been expressed in countless Awards of this Board, it becomes the Organization's obligation to demons the Board under the rather stringent requirements expressed in those Awards.

 In this regard we have noted a reference to an asserted practice at Madison, Wisconsin, however, we fail to note a showing of specifics beyond that. In fact, during Claimant states: "This committee could cite cases throughout the system". However, it failed to do so. Carries has denied the existence of a past practice. Because of the limiting nature of the 1941 Memorandum of Understanding - we are inclined t practice is required to overcome the implication that the parties intended to limit its applicability to the geographic area specified therein.



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: ~ i
 Enecutive Secretary

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