(Brotherhood of Railroad Sigmalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al.:

 On behalf of Mr. J. D. Arrowood, Signalman assigned to Gang No. 3, (Foreman R. M. Roberts), be paid for two hours at the straight time rate on January 16, 1974, account Communication Maintainer Jack Wilham performing work that has in the past been done by signal employees in connection with their duties of reworking or installing new signal equipment.

OPINION OF BOARD: In January 1974, Claimant occupied a regular assign-

On January 16, 1974, Signal Gang No. 3 was engaged in installing a crossing signal at Salisbury, North Carolina. During the course of installing the crossing signal, 3 did not have certain equipment (conduit, weather-heads, and rail straps) necessary to complete the service connection at this project. The needed equipment was readily available from Communications Maintainer Jack Wilham, who had the necessary material on band for a communications project on his territory at Thomasville, North Carolina, some 50 miles north of Salisbury. In accordance with instructions from Carrier, Communications Maintainer Jack Wilham loaded the needed equipment, hauled it via highway in a company truck to Salisbury, North Carolina, where the needed equipment was ,delivered to Signal Gang No. 3 at the worksite for their completion of the crossing signal installation.

 Claimant argues that a Signalman is entitled to an additional payment of two (2) hours at the straight time rate for January 16, 1974, on the ground that Carrier allegedly violated Scope Rule 1 of the present Signalmen's Agreement. It is alleged that the Agreement was violated when Carrier instructed or permitted a Communications Maintainer to take over and perform duties that have in the past been performed by signalmen when it was in connection with their work.













Claimant argues that handling material when connected to the "coestruction, installation, maintenanc parcel of such "construction, installation, maintenance and repair of signals."

 The Hoard recognizes that while a certain amount of "handling" in inherent to the "construction, installation, maintenance and repair of signals," nevertheless, the language in Scope Rule 1 is not broad enough to encompass the transportation of materials in the instant case where the material involved was communication material issued to a Communications Maintainer, and stored at a Communications material yard. Here, the material only became signal material, to be used by sigaalmea, at the time it was delivered to the signal gang.

 To hold that the material in question became signal material at the moment Carrier decided the material would be transferred from the communications department to the s and intent of the parties in Scope Rule 1.
                    Docket Number SG-21227


In two prior Awards of this Hoard involving the same agreement and the transporting and handling of signal material it was held that the Scope Rule 1 was not violated (Awards 12188 and 10613).

        Specifically, in Award 10613 it was stated by this Hoard that:


        "An examination of Scope Rule 1 does not reserve the work in question exclusively to the Organization. We cannot find in this rule the authority for 'ordering, receiving, handling, storing, shipping and distribution of signal materials and equipment,' as expressed in the Organization's claim. The last phrase of Rule 1, 'as well as all other work generally recognized as 'signal work,' cannot be accepted as authority for the Organization's claim. Clerks have performed this work Carrier, and that work has never been performed exclusively by the signalmen."


Claimant states, however, that Awards 10051 and 5046 of this Hoard sustain its contention that movement of materials to a job site for immediate use on such job, is the exclusive work of Signalmen.

        Award 5046 reads in part:


        " . . but work in connection with the movement of such materials from a warehouse or material yard to a signal construction or maintenance job for immediate use on such job,is the exclusive work of Signalmen. Awards 3826, 3689, 4797, 4978."


The same question of exclusivity of work for Signalmen in delivery or transporting signal material, as well as the same cited authority of Awards 5046 and 10051, were interpreted by this Hoard in Award 13347:

        "No Awards have been found that support the proposition that the movement of material from a warehouse or material yard to a signal construction job, is the exclusive work of Signalmen though such work might be the Signalmen's in a given case. The Awards do not support the Rule, that the purpose for which the trucking will be done, as determinative of whether or not the work belongs to


        In light of the foregoing, the Hoard held in Award 13708 that:


        "We firm that the transporting of signal material to the job site, as described herein, is not work exclusively belonging to Signalmen* The Scope Rule of the Signal Agreement does not specifically mention the transporting

                    Award Number 21294 Page 4

                    Docket Number SG-21227


        "of signal materials to ,job sites, as that work reserved to the Signalmen. It is apparent from the record, materials have been picked up and delivered to job sites by other Crafts or Classes. Transporting or delivery is not 'any other work generally recognized as signal work,' or has the Organization shown that Signalmen have performed such work to the exclusion of others."


Furthermore, our decisions in Awards 19252 and 12795 held that a truck or material comes within the jurisdiction of a particular work gang only after it is delivered for the use of that gang, and not while it is in transit.

        FINDINGS: 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.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIOKAL RAILROAD ADJWTIEIT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


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