(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blanchette,-Richard C. Bond ( and John H. McArthur, Trustees of the ( Property of Penn Central Transportation ( Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalman on the Penn Central Transportation
 Company (former New York Central Railroad Company-Lines West of Buffalo):



Claim in behalf of Signal Maintainer M. E. Handley for eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate in each work week account he was and is deprived of performing work that accrues to him on a 7.33 stretch of track located between Spring Hill and Riley, Indiana, commencing on December 24, 1973, inclusive and continuing, such deprivation of work in violation of the Scope of the current working agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves the work of once-a-month inspection
 of flashers at a highway crossing on 7.33 miles of
 track between Spring Hill, Indiana and a point south of Riley, Indiana.
 Claimant M. E. Handley held a position of Signal Maintainer headquartered
 at Oakland, Indiana and, as part of his duties, once each month inspected
 the crossing flashers at State Highway No. 159. By a proposed lease
 agreement dated September 17, 1973 the Carrier herein, owner of the'track
 and right of way in question, leased same to the Louisville and Nashville
 Railroad Company. That lease agreement provided for maintenance, operation
 and use by the L&N of the 7.33 miles of track for the purpose of moving
 coal from the Chinook Mine near Riley, Indiana to the LdaN's main line track
 near Spring Hill and thence to the American Electric and Power Company
 steam plant at Breed, Indiana. This agreement subsequently was approved
 by the Interstate Commerce Commission, over the protests of affected labor
 organizations and with the imposition of the New Orleans Union protective
 conditions, in ICC Finance Docket No. 27624 (June 27, 197

 By letter dated December 7, 1973 Carrier informed the General Chairman of the Organization of the above lease agreement as follows:



        "trackage, construct the necessary connections etc. under the same terms and conditions contained in the proposed lease agreement. That this grant shall be considered supplemental to and in conjunction with the formal lease agreement and is entered into pending finalization of said lease agreement and will be considered terminated with the finalization of said lease agreement.


        The territory involved is EIM Valuation Section 8717+90 (approximately 120 ft. east of the crossing of the main tracks of the parties) aid Valuation Section 9104+81, a distance of 7.33 miles.


        The LdN during the -term of the lease care for, maintain, renew the leased premises at Lessee's sole expense. Accordingly, Penn Central C&S employer will not have responsibility for Signal and Communication facilities within the above stated limits effective with the end of the tour of duty on December 21, 1973."


The General Chairman protested this proposal by letter of December 13, 1973 reading in pertinent part as follows:

        am particularly disturbed by the last paragraph of your letter, wherein you advise that Penn Central CdS employees will not have responsibility for Signal and Communication facilities within the limits of the lease, effective with the end of tour of duty on December 21, 1973.


        Employees represented by this organization, currently perform work on related equipment accruing to portion of railroad.


        We expect them to continue performing this work now and in the future, because under present agreemeata, they are contractually entitled to it, and these agreements are still in full force and effect, lease or no lease.


        Please acknowledge and advise of your position concerning work relating to our Scope Rules."


The lease arrangement went forth as scheduled, L&N signal employer began performing the work on instant claim was filed on January 10, 1974 alleging a violation of Rule 1, the Scope Rule of the agreement between Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.
                  Award Number 21283 ' Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21243


We have studied the record and the myriad awards cited by the parties and must conclude that the claim is without merit. None of the several theories.advanced by the Organization will support this claim. This simple lease agreement is not a "consolidation" or a "coordination" as those terms are understood in Interstate Coerce Commission rulings or railway labor law. Even if, arguendo, a Washington Job Protection Agreement question were at issue herein, and it is not, the proper adjudicatory forum is elsewhere. Nor does the record support a conclusion that the Scope Rule was violated. The evidence shows no impropriety in the making of the lease agreement, Carrier thereby relinquishes right of dominion and control to L&K for the term of the lease, IAN is obligated to maintain and operate the track and right of way, and IM enjoys sole right to the use and enjoyment of the leased track. It is true that Carrier retains title and ownership of the property but all of the indicia of dominion and control legally a LdaK until the lease expires. In these circumstances it mast be found that legally and practically the Carrier herein has neither the right, the obligation nor the power to assign the work to its own employee. A number of Awards involving subcontracting of work, while not analogy Carrier's position that the Scope Rule does not applyy to cases where the work at issue is not within Carrier's direction or control, and not at its expense or for its benefit. See Awards 20639, 20529, 20280, 20644, et al. But we also have prior awards which deal directly with the question of leasing and Scope Rule claims, to wit:

        "We think the mere fact of ownership of property by the Carrier is not sufficient ground for claim by the Organization of application of contract rights the common business of the Carrier and Organization is railroad operation, and it is to that business an property employed in that business alone, that their Agreements apply. Where property is so used no lease or other device should exclude the operation of the Agreement thereon, and where a Carrier owns property used not in the operation or maintenance of its railroad, but for other and separate purposes, s is outside the purview of the Agreement. The leased warehouse here involved was leased and used for purposes excluding it from the Agreement."

                    AWARD 4783

                    a ~r


        "There is no question as to the nature of the work in this dispute. It is clearly signal work which accrues to that class of employes* The issue, however, is whether the work was properly assigned to Norfolk and

                    Award Humber 21283 Page 4

                    Docket Number SG-21243


        "Western Railway Company employes, or whether it should have been performed by Pennsylvania Railroad employes. In short, we must determine whether the work involved was subject to the Agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.


        The Scope Rule has no application to the situation in the instant case because the Norfolk and Western Railway Company owns the signal equipment and maintains it by its own Signal Department employes. Moreover, the signals are located on land belonging to or leased to it by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. With respect to the allegation that Carrier produced no satisfactory evidence to show that the land bad been leased to the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, we find that there was a verbal agreement and understanding prior to the performance of the work in question which culminated in the written lease dated May 19, 1959. We are satisfied, therefore, that the land was leased to the Norfolk and Western Railway Company. The Scope Rule cannot extend to does not belong to Carrier; it applies only to that work Carrier has the power to offer. The fact that the Pennsylvania Railroad jointly used the facilities bring these and the employes who installed and operated them under the Scope Rule."

                                      AWARD 13056


        "The allegations of fact upon which the denial of the claim. was based were not challenged on the property by Claimants. Under the authority of Award 4783 we hold that sine the record reflects a lease of property for the use of lessee and not for the railroad, maintenance work done by lessee in fulfillment of its obligation is not within the scope of the Agreement between Claimante and Carrier."

                                      AWARD 14641


See also Award 19639 and awards cited therein.

 We have not been shown that the foregoing awards are palpably erroneous or inapplicable herein. Applying the established principles which they contain to this dispute we have no alternative but to deny the claim.

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

                    Award Number 21283 Page 5

                    Docket Number SG-21243


        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 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: Jao 14/.

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November 1976.