PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of Assistant Signal Maintainer D. A. Sands, Duluth, Minnesota, for a minimum call of two hours and forty minutes at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, for each day, June 1 and 3, 1975, account not called on those dates to assist Mr. W. L. Huff, the Duluth Interlocking Maintainer, on trouble calls on their assigned territory. (General Chairman file: TC-75-14. Carrier file: SI-60 7/17/75 A)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was the incumbent of a position of Assistant
 Signal Maintainer at Duluth, Minnesota; he was assigned to work with Interlocking Maintainer W. L. Huff, Claimant's assigned hours were Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. Paragraph P. of Rule 2 describes his position as follows:

On Sunday June 1, 1975 Maintainer Huff was called at 4:30 P.M. to remedy a malfunction in a switch at the Duluth Drawbridge. He completed the necessary repairs by 6:30 P.M. On Tuesday, June 3, 1975 Maintainer Huff was called at 9:00 PM, when a signal at Grassy Point did not clear properly; he responded to the call and restored the signal to proper working order by 10:30 P.M. On neither occasion did Huff need assistance to perform the necessary work; Claimant was not called out on either occasion, thus triggering this dispute.

 Petitioner asserts that any employe assigned to regular maintenance duties is entitled to be called for work on his assigned territory. A large number of prior instances extending over a period of five years were cited by Petitioner to indicate a long standing practice of calling out Claimant to assist the Maintainer on trouble calls outside of regular hours. In addition, Petitioner relies, in part, on Rule 12, which provides in pertinent part:
                      Award Number 21617 Page 2

                      Docket Number SG-21800


                "RULE 12. SUBJECT TO CALL.


                "A. An employee assigned to regular main

                tenance duties will notify the person

                designated by the Carrier where he may

                be called by filing his home address

                and telephone number, if he has a tele

                phone, with such person. An employee

                called to perform work outside of assigned

                working hours will respond promptly

                when called. The regular assigned employee,

                if available, will be called for such

                work on his assigned territory."


Petitioner also cites some prior awards (Awards 6218 and 1125) which held that rules, such as Rule 12 herein, contain a mandatory provision that the Carrier will call regular incumbents unless they are registered absent, when there is overtime work to be performed.

 Carrier argues that it is not required to send two employes to do one man's work. In support, Rule 12 is cited which states that the regularly assigned employe (in the singular) will be called for such work on his assigned territory. Carrier points out that the regularly assigned Maintainer performed the necessary work without help. Carrier argues that in the absence of a restrictive rule, it is entitled to assign its employes as it sees fit and it saw no need for two employes in the two instances in dispute. Carrier argues that there is no rule which requires calling two men for one man's work. It is contended that Petitioner has failed to indicate any rule in support of its position. While admitting that Claimant and others may have previously been called to assist the maintainers, Carrier asserts that this does not establish a past practice. Carrier argues that past practice may only be considered when the contract language is ambiguous and it is necessary to ascertain the intent of the parties; Rule 12 is held not to be ambiguous.

 It is noted that the two prior Awards cited by the organization are not controlling since they both deal with fact circumstances in which employes other than those regularly assigned were called out to do work on overtime (or on call). We find no rule support for Petitioner's position in this dispute; there is no basis for restricting Carrier's normally exercised managerial prerogative of determining how many employes are required for the work in question. In Award 16216 (and in a host of other awards holding similarly) we said:
                      Award Number 21617 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21800


                "It is well established that Carriers may determine the manner in which work and operations are to be performed in the best interest of efficiency and economy unless such rights are restricted by Agreements..."


In the instances involved in this matter Maintainer Huff was called in a proper manner to perform the type of signal work he performed during his regularly scheduled work week. There was no contractual basis to force Carrier to call one or more additional employes, who were not needed, regardless of their regular weekly assignments.

          For the reasons indicated, the Claim 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


          Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: e~OJqv aeu/4~
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of July 1977.