(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Trans
 portation Company:

 (a) On or about December 15th and 16th, 1973, the carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, when it assigned and/or permitted the work of repairing the signal pole line at various locations in the Arlington Heights, I11. area, which is located on the Central Seniority District to Mr. R. Deakin, Signal Mtnr. at Reedsburg, Wis., Mr. D. Hooker, Signal Mtnr. at Evansville, Wis., and to Mr. J. Mochenbacher, Ldr. Sigma. Madison, Wis. These employes are assigned to the Northwestern Seniority District and hold no seniority on the Central Seniority District where the work was performed.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate three (3) signal employes on the Central Seniority District the amount of time consumed by the Northwestern District employes 15A and 20(a) account of this violation. Following are the names of the claimants.

 R. J. Scheer. R.N. Cimochowaki. T. Zubb.

 LCarrier's file: 79-8-174/

 OPINION OF BOARD: On December 13 and 14, 1973 due to a severe snow storm
 in the Chicago area, which dumped some two (2) feet of
 snow on the ground, the Chicago area signalmen worked long hours in repairing
 pole lines. It was necessary to have additional repair work performed as a
 result of the snow storm, on Saturday and Sunday, December 15 and 16, 1973.
 The Signal Supervisor in charge of the Arlington Heights area, H. L. Tomkins,
 called Terminal District Signal Supervisor S. Hoffer, and requested the
 assistance of additional Central Seniority District Signalmen working under
 Mr. Hoffer, to work in the Arlington Heights area on the weekend. Signal
 Supervisor Hoffer called all of the signalmen whom he thought was available,
 but they turned down the opportunity to work on the weekend because they were
 exhausted from working long hours on December 13 and 14. The three claimants,
 who were signal maintainers assigned to the Suburban territory, were not called
 because Carrier felt they would be needed in case of an emergency in the Sub
 urban territory, where they were assigned. Claimant Zubb was assigned to
 Glencoe (under the jurisdiction of Signal Supervisor Tamkina), Claimant Cim
 ochowski was assigned to De Val (Des Plaines, Illinois), and Claimant Sheer


was assigned to the Lake Street Tower, in downtown Chicago. None of these three (3) claimants were called, because the Signal Supervisors felt these men would be needed on their own territory.

 As a result, the Signal Supervisor used three (3) signalmen from the Northwestern Seniority District, who were assigned at Reedsburg, Evansville, and Madison, Wiscon
Claims are presented in behalf of the three (3) Central Seniority District signalmen, for payment on Saturday and Sunday at double time rate, on the basis of their contention that they should have been used on their seniority district before utilizing employes from outside the seniority district.

 Rules in the present Agreement which have a bearing upon the present dispute are as follows:













                  Docket Number SG-21253


        CALLED TO REPORT FOR WORK OUTSIDE REGULAR HOURS. 15. (a) Employes released from duty and called to perform work outside of and not continuous with regular working hours will be paid a minimum allowance of two hours and forty minutes at rate and one-half. If held longer than two hours and forty minutes they will be paid at rate and one-half, computed on the actual minute basis. Time of employes called will begin at time called and will end. when released at designated headquarters, unless release is accepted at another point, except that time in excess of one hour from time called to time reporting at designated headquarteres or other agreed to point will no


        SUBJECT TO CALL. 16. (a) Employes assigned to regular maintenance duties recognize the possibili operation of the railway, and will notify the person designated by the management where they may be called. When such employes desire to leave their home station or section they will notify the person designated by the management that they will be absent, about when they will return, and, when possible, where they may be found. Unless registered absent, regular assignee will be called.


In reviewing the instant case, the Board finds that Rule 35(a) in setting up five (5) separate seniority districts gives employes within each of the districts first claim on any work performed within their particular district.

 As was stated by this Board in Award 13832 dealing with language similar or related to Rule 35(a):

        Once Carrier has decided that certain work should be done, . however, the employes have rights which come into play and cannot be ignored. Among these rights is the right to be preferred over other employes for work to be performed in the district. If this right is ignored, the senior employes suffer a monetary loss. They have been deprived of the earnings which would have accrued from that w


Next, looking at Rule 20(a) we must inquire whether there were indeed "no other qualified signalmen available."

 Carrier contends that the three (3) Claimants were not "available" within the meaning of Rule 20(a), because they would be "needed in case of an emergency in the Suburban territory, where they were assigned." The record clearly shows the three (3) Claimants were not working at the time, however, and were not called first, even though they were in the Central Seniority District.
                  Award Number 21296 Page 4

                  Docket Number SG-21253


Several past awards of this Board have dealt with the interpretation to be given to the word "av
        In Award- 20562 the Board said:


        ...the Carrier's assertion that most of the Claimants worked on the claim date, plus overtime, and declined overtime during the claim period is no defense.


        Similarly, in Award 16946 the Board noted:


        The language of Rule 38(b) is clear that all the burning involved belonged to maintenance of way welders, with the single listed exception which is not here applicable, and its assignment of the work to other than a welder violated the Agreement. Claimant was available as he was performing work where assigned by Carrier in the imm


        Also, in Award 15497 the Board pointed out:


        Carrier argues that the Claim should be denied because "there were no signal employes available to perform the work" and the Claimants were on duty and under pay at the times the involved work was performed.


        These arguments are not valid. As we said in Award 13832 (Wolfs)


        "The fact is that Claimants were working where Carrier has assigned them, hence were not only available but Carrier was availing itself of them."


        Finally, in Award 13832 the Board explained:


        Carrier's second defense, that Claimants were not available, is equally invalid. The fact is that Claimants were working where Carrier had assigned them, hence were not only available but Carrier was then availing itself were not available at the time and place where the extra work was to be done, it was because Carrier chose not to assign them there.


Therefore, in line with our earlier awards, the Board must conclude that the Claimants in the instant case were indeed "available" within the meaning of Rule 20(a), and thus should have been called first, before bringing in employes from the
                  Award Number 21296 Page 5

                  Docket Number SG-21253


In light of the foregoing, the Board finds there is no need to delve into the additional question of whether two (2) feet of snow on the ground is an "emergency" within the meaning of Rule 20(a).

        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 Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


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