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





Claim the carrier violated the current agreement Article 2, Section 23 H. On April 20, 1974 it used R. L. Woodie, Signalman in gang, headquarters Perryville, Md. to open signal cable splices to be meggered for grounds, between Havre De Grace and Woodie was asked at the end of his tour of duty on April 19, 1974 to work on Saturday, April 20, 1974; he worked from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for a total of 8 hours.

 Claim that W. T. Bines, Maintainer T6dr who is the regular cable man and also a senior employee should have been used to perform this work on April 20, 1974. Claim W. T. Bines be paid 8 bra. at the time and.one half rate of pay.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claim herein involves work on a Saturday of opening
 splices on signal cables; there was work performed from
 7:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. on the date in question. Claimant was a regularly
 assigned Maintainer Communications; the work was performed by the regularly
 assigned Signalman at Perryville, Mr. Woodie.



It is undisputed that there was no " ....available unassigned employe who will otherwise not have forty hours of work that week". The sole question, therefore is whether or not the Claimant was the "regular employe" entitled to perform the disputed work.
                    Docket Number SG-21336


Petitioner's position is based on the fact that Claimant was the senior employe and had the skill to perform the work in question. An examination of the rule (supra) indicates that neither of these attributes is a relevant factor in the assignment of the work in dispute. Carrier argues from the outset of the dispute that Claimant was a Maintainer (T&T) and was not qualified to work on signal apparatus.

 The crux of this dispute is the identification of the employe who normally performed the work of opening splices on signal cables. From the record, it is evident that Claimant did not normally perform the work in question whereas Signalman Woodie did perform the work routinely and regularly. Even though Claimant not even established, he certainly was not in the craft group which normally performed the disputed work. Based on the clear language of Section 23 (h) and the lack of evidentiary support for the Claim, it must be denied.

        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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD 49,11*0 fAazyaoo By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1977.