(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on The Texas and Pacific Railway Company:

 For and on behalf of the following named members of Signal Gang 1681, Centennial Yard, for an additional eight (8) hours pay each at time and one-half their respective straight time hourly rate; account Superintendent C. E. Dettmenn assig Yard on March 28, 1973, resulting in a flagrant violation of the Carrier's Safety Rules and the Scope Rule and Rule 62 of the Signalmen's Agreement.










OPINION OF BOARD: On March 28, 1973 Claimants, constituting Signal Gadg No.
 1681, were assigned the task of installing new wear plates, or shoes, on the master retarder at Carrier's Centennial Yard. The Superintendent instructed the Mai this task_vhich took a total of about three hours. The Superintendent was informed by the Signal Gan Signalmen's Agreement but the Superintendent indicated in the interest of getting the work done expeditiously the assignment would be carried out. The work of installing new shoes on the master retarder was required not less than every six weeks and was recognized to be work accruing to signal forces: it is known that the wear plates were adjusted approximately weekly by the insertion of shims to compensate for wear. Carrier stated that the Centennial Yard, which is the hump yard, was shut down every Tuesday morning for the heavy maintenance of equipment including the retarders.

 Carrier claims, and we agree, that there is no validity to Petitioner's contention with respect to t in this dispute is Rule 62, which provides:




during regular working hours." Carrier states that there was considerable pressure in March 1973
 due to very heavy grain movements. It is stated that 1. trains were held
 out of the yard on a daily basis because of congestion; 2. trains were
 frequently delayed in departing for lack of power; and 3. care were delayed
 waiting to be humped. Carrier contends that in an effort to reduce the
 delays means were sought to reduce the time the hump would be shut down for
 maintenance. To accomplish this goal, the Superintendent, as an experiment
 on March 28th, assigned members of the track gang to assist in the reshoeing
 operation to provide any additional manual labor which might be helpful.
 Carrier stated that "The experience revealed that it took approximately the

 same length of time to accomplish the work with additional manpower and trackmen have not since been made available to assist the signal gang in the performance of the work". Carrier, by implication in its submission, indicates the existence of an emergency due to the delays in the humping operation caused by the shoe installation on the retarder. In its rebuttal statement and in subsequent argument before the Referee, Carrier specifically alleges that it acted properly in the assignment of the track gang due to "extreme emergency" caused by the instant maintenance job which caused the yard to be shut down.

 Petitioner claims that there was no emergency since normal maintenance was the only work involved. F desired to reduce the time required for the job, it should have called upon additional signal employes rather than employes not covered by the Agreement.

 With respect to the issue of emergency, it is illogical for this Hoard to hold that activity which is admittedly regular repetitive maintenance work, is properly cha same logic, any maintenance work which takes regular equipment out of service for preventitive or other maintenance, could be termed emergency work. Although we understand Carrier's desire to minimize the time the yard was inoperative due to maintenance requirements, the desire for shorter time cannot be translated into an emergency situation. Additionally, it is noted that the issue of emergency was never directly raised on the property during the handling of this dispute.

 The problem of the penalty aspect of the Claim is once more raised before this Hoard. However, in this instance the facts are somewhat different than in prior cases. The admitted evidence indicates that the addition of the track force did not reduce the normal period of time spent by the Signal


Gang to complete the assigned task. There is no basis for assuming that there was a loss of earnings or work opportunity for these Claimants und* the circumstances herein. We must conclude that although there was a clear violation of Role 62 and the Scope Rule, under the peculiar circumstances of this dispute, no monetary claim may be assessed. The Carrier was in fact penalized by paying the track forces for three hours of totally nonproductive work.



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 Hoard has Jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: -/~(_ ~, p(~, Q~ ~/
 ~ecutive Secretary

      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976.