(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Railway Company

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

On behalf of D. E. Roquemore, Signal Maintainer, Swing Shift, Brosnan Yard, for two hours and forty minutes overtime account Carrier called H. E. Bennett, Signalman headquartered at Brosnan Yard, at 3:15 a.m. on July 26, 1975, to repair a light detector burned out in the bottom of group four at Brosnan Retarder Yard.

On behalf of D. E. Roquemore, Signal Maintainer, Swing Shift, Brosnan Yard, for eight hours at the time and one-half rate, account Carrier used Signalman H. E. Bennett, Brosnan Yard, to fill the first shift at Brosnan Yard on Labor Day, September 1, 1975.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant asserts that Carrier violated Rule 37 (b)
 by its failure to call him for overtime on Saturday,
 July 26, 1975 (claim No. 1) at 3:15 A.M., and by its failure to call him
 to work on the September 1, 1975 Labor Day holiday (claim No. 2).

 Review of the record indicates that both the claimant D. E. Roquemore, a signal maintainer on the swing shift, and H. E. Bennett, signalman, are employed at the Brosnan Yard. Because of the illness of signal maintainer, J. F. Shankles, from the latter part of 1974 until around April, 1975, H. E. Bennett was temporarily assigned to fill it. Subsequently thereafter the position was bulletined again as a permanent vacancy subject to the return of J. F. Shankles, consistent with the requirements delineated in Rule 18 (b).

 Unable to fill the position with bid applications from employes in the Lines West Seniority District, the Carrier requested supervisors to contact signal employes at Brosnan Yard according to seniority status. By letter of April 17, 1975 (Carrier exhibit B) Carrier apprised the Brotherhood that H. E. Bennett, as the senior employee, requested that he remain temporarily in said position until it was permanently occupied.


Standing alone it is clear that J. F. Shankles as signal maintainer on the first shift was senior to D. E. Roque-ore, signal maintainer on the swing shift. The former's seniority date is August 14, 1967 while the latter's seniority date is March 29, 1971.

        H. E. Bennett's seniority date is January 1, 1971.


Careful examination of the record, particularly respecting Rule II, Section (d) set forth hereinafter, doesn't distinguish between signalman and signal maintainer:
        "Signalman, Signal Maintainer: (Effective June 19, 1921) A man qualified and assigned to perform work generally recognized as signal work, together with all mechanics' work connected therewith, shall be classified as a signalman or signal maintainer."


Neither does the Agreement provide separate seniority lines for the aforesaid positions. Signal employes are in the Lines West Seniority District.

 While admittedly Rule 37 (b) - SUBJECT TO CALL addresses Signal Maintainers, H. E. Bennett's greater seniority, albeit only two months, carries with it the senior status when he temporarily filled Shankles' position. Concluding otherwise would be to vitiate the seniority concept.

        The claim is denied.


        FILINGS: 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

        The Agreement was not violated.

Award Number 21715 Page 3
 Docket Number SG-21825

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 494/1

        Executive Secretary


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