Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railroad Sigaalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Southern Railway Company


STATEMENT CZ? CLAIM: Claim cf the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
                Railroad Sigaalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al.:


" On behalf of Signal Maintainer R. C. Capps, Greenville, S. C., for two hours and forty minutes at time and one-half rate, account Supervisor Patrick performed reco ,!g~rrier's file: SG-0

 OPINION OF HOARD: On Sunday, April 14, 1974, signal trouble occurred in
 the CTC system which indicated that a track was occupied near Jason, Georgia, which is about fif when in fact the track was empty. A Signal Maintainer was called to investigate the trouble at Jason the trouble . A Signal Supervisor at the CTC office at.Greenville then turned on the oscilloscope to locate the trouble on the section and then used the radio phone to inform the maintainer of the l problem. Petitioner contends that the Supervisor's use of the oscilloscope to locate the trouble violated the Agreement and deprived Claimant of a call on his rest defy.

 Carrier maintains that the use of oscilloscopes by Signal Supervisors to locate signal trouble i standing system-wide practice (which was not denied by the Organization). Carrier asserts that there was no problems with the CTC machine itself and no repairs or other mainteenance on that equipment were made. All maintenance and repair work to cor signal maintainer in the field. Carrier argues that all testing and inspection or other incidental w and cites a series of awards in support of that position. Carrier also cites Award 16367 in an analagous dispute in support of its position.

 Petitioner asserts that any work by the Supervisor, including "the use of teat equipment for the purpose of clearing signal trouble", was a violation of the Agreement. Admitting that supervisory personnel may perform some testing inspection work in order to determine whether the employer being supervised are this instance the work exceeded that boundary. It in argued that these is a need for coordination of work between someone at the CTC control machine and one or more persons in the field for the purpose of correcting signal trouble such as that in the instant case. It is concluded, therefore, that the Supervisor performed "work" in this instance in violation of the Agreement.
                    Award Number 21187 Page 2

                    Docket Number SI;-27.213


There is no question but that in this dispute the Supervisor performed the function of locating the trouble and relayed that information to the Maintainer in the field so that the necessary repairs could be made. It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between proper supervisory functions and scope covered work and this dispute involves one of the very fine distinctions. In Award 20510 we dealt with a very closely related problem. In that claim, which was sustained, the supervisor was engaged in making tests of equipment in order to determine the nature of the malfunctions as well as tests a if the equipment was functioning properly. In that award we said:

        "Our conclusion is that supervisors have the right to inspect equipment only for the purpose of determining the nature of the problem and in order to assign proper personnel to make repairs ...."


In the instant case there was no testing both before and after the difficulty was discovered, an dis In this dispute, the use of the oscilloscope may be considered a necessary adjunct for proper assignment of personnel to make the repairs rather than work exclusively reserved for non-yupervisory personnel. The location of the prroblesi so that it can be repaired by proper maintenance personnel is a managerial function and activity for that purpose such as that !n this cue is not a violation of the Agreement. Also, this dispute can be distinguished even further frau Award 20510 in that here there was 4 long standing system-wide practice for supervisors to use the oscilloscope to locate trouble in the field.

 For all the reasons indicated above, we must conclude that the claim is lacking in merit and mugt be denied.

        FIIIDI1M: 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 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Number 21187 . Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21213

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTDUT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1976.
          Dissent to Award t;o. 21187. Docket No. SG-21213


The :s,jority in Award Pro. 2"87 is ,uilty of two errors, it has engaged in "over-mill" and rendered an opinion that is inconsistent with itself.

 ?he over-kill :acs accmplished by holding the position of the F,!t;.ticner to be in error On to counts :fnen one correct count would ::awe sufficed.

 Tae inconsistency occurred in the citing of our Award No. =J510 which :llovred iralia:;erial Lispection "*** in order to assic. prc2)er personnel to mite re-> here, vama the person "assi~,-nd" was already on duty and the testing was cnly ;,o facilitate the work he r.-as performing.

    1.·,rard No. 21137 is in error and : di scent.


                                            :.


                                W. W. Altus, Jr.

                                            1.


                                Labor '%ember