(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transpor
 tation Company:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current agreement between the (former Pacific Electric Railway Company) and its employes, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective September 1, 1949 (including revisions) particularly the Scope rule and rule 6 of Article 1, when it allowed Southern Pacific signal department employes at the Los Angeles signal shop and also the Sacramento signal shop, perform work that by Agreement belongs to former Pacific Electric Railway signal department employes.

 (b) Messers, O choa, Jaramillo and Collier, each be allowed eight hours pay per day per man at the straight time rate for a signalman for every work day and holiday, commencing with November 19, 1974 and continuing until positions are established at Macy Street Yards for the repairing of various items of signal equipment, such as GS Hydraulic Gate Mechanisms, Wig Wag Mechanisms, plug-in and Shelf Type Relays, and other signal associated equ~pment used on former Pacific Electric property. /Carrier file: SIG 152-349/

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute alleges that Carrier transferred certain
 signal work from its former Pacific Electric Railway
 signal shops to its Los Angeles Shops. Again, however, we are faced with
 broad and sweeping allegations in Petitioner's presentation of the case on
 the property and before the Board, and a total absence of any evidence
 supportive of Petitioner's position.

 As was the case in a very similar dispute between these same parties in Award 21725, we have before us only indefinite and vague conclusionary statements without evidence of probative value to consider in reaching a determination of this dispute. With the record in this state, we are unable to make an intelligent evaluation of the dispute and, for the reasons stated in the above Award, we are constrained to likewise dismiss this claim.






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



        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 491,61, 4QAi~

        Executive Secretary


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