(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
 Company:

 On behalf of Nashville Division signal employes M. F. Trauernicht, J. C. Anderson, Leon McCanless, R. N. Freeman, J. B. Russell and T. D. Cook, for 80 hours each at their respective time and one-half rates, account System Signal Construction Forces performing work which is generally assigned to Division Signal Forces, su




Carrier assigned a system gang to perform certain work of moving highway crossing protection signals in connection with the widening of a street. The Organization asserts that district signal forces have a prior right to signal work in their respective districts - and over system forces, except as specified in Rule 51(a). The Organization concludes that there was no new installation.

 Initially, on the property, Carrier raised the defense of "emergency", however, that assertion d light signals were being replaced with signals and welded rail work was being performed.

 Carrier asserts that this same type of work has been performed in the past on numerous occasions, without objection. Although the Organization disputes that assertion, it failed to offer specific rebuttal on the property. But, be that as it may, this Board is of the view that Claimants are placing an unduly restrictive interpretation on Rule 51(a). They insist that the work in question was not new installation. That insistence appears to overlook the exception. System gangs may be confined to work on new installations, except for necessary maintenance changes in connection with a construction project, and in certain types of emergencies. Our review of the record strongly suggests that the pertinent e Rebuttal Statement,
                  Docket Number SG-21086


Claimants allege "...a construction project is a signal construction project, ...." We do not read the rule as being that restrictive. If, in fact, the parties intended such a limitation, it was incumbent upon the Claimants to submit evidence to support such a conclusion. Accordingly, we will dismiss the claim for failure of proof.

        FINDINGS: 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 claim be dismissed.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTS BOARD

                W: By Order of Third Division


ATTEST Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day ofApril 1976.