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

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Penn Central
 Transportation Company (former New York Central Railroad Company-Lines
 West of Buffalo):

System Docket W-58

Southern Region - Southwest Division Case S-5-74


Carrier violated the current Signalman's Agreement as amended, when it required and or permitted the Fort Wayne track dep't. gang assigned to Marion, Indiana to remove a Sperry Car rail found to be defective in the third week of April 1 from the main track in the 3W track circuit without maintainer setting signal at stop and without maintainer removing the bonding. Bonding was removed by track forces in violation of Rule 1 2, 13(1) and title rule of the current agreement. Violation occured icon Iay 02, 1974.

 Carrier now be required to compensate Maintainer R. W. Hartsock in the amount of 2.7 hours at the overtime rate for his assignment on May 02, 1974 for denying him the opportunity to perform his regular assignement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that Carrier violated the
 Agreement between the parties when it used track
 forces to open and enter into an in-service electrical signal circuit by
 breaking signal rail bonding. It is the Organization's position that its
 Scope Rule specifically covers "bonding of track for signal and inter
 locking purposes", and that work on signal bond wires should only be
 performed by employes classified under its agreement.


The facts and circumstances of this dispute are strikingly similar to those in Award No. 6 of Public Law Board No. 1442, between these same parties. There the Board denied the claim with the following:

            "Findings: 0n some date prior to October 19, 1972,

          Carrier began the project of replacing bolted rail with continuous welded rail over a 75 mile portion of single track territory. The old rail was removed in the following manner: maintenance of may employees removed the connecting bolts from the rail joints, removed the spikes and plates which held the rail to the ties, and then used a crane to lift out the disconnected sections of rail. Where there were rail bonds between the sections of bolted rail, they were left in place by track forces and were broken by the lifting action of the crane. Prior to October 19, Claimant, lead signal maintainer had been following the welded rail gang in his area and had been present when the rail was removed and the bonds broken. It does not appear that he performed arty function in connection with the bond breaking other than to be present. 0n the 19th, he was instructed not to follow the gang but to perform other work on his section. The claim is that when welded rail gang broke the bonds without the presence of a. signalman, they violated the scope rule of the Signalman's Agreement.


          The Scope Rule provides for coverage of all employees of the Signal Department engaged.in construction, installation, inspection, testing, maintenance and repair of, among other things, 'bonding track for signal and interlocking purposes.' The question is whether this language covers the breaking of the bond wire in the track removal operation under the circumstances of this case.


          Various awards of the NRAB Third Division have considered similar questions on other properties and have reached different results depending on the particular factual circumstances. See, e. g., Awards 8069, 20526, 20536, 20555.

                  Award Number 21883 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-21384


            ~~Under the circumstances of this case, we think that there was no scope rule violation. The track involved had been taken out of service and there were no signal functions remaining in connection with the removal and scrapping of the bolted rail. Whatever signal adjustments had to be made in connection with road crossing signals affected by the breaking of the bonds had obviously already been made by the time of the instant claim. There is no contention that such adjustments or any work in connection with necessary rebonding after the welded rail was installed, was done by other than signal employees. It does not appear from the record that if Claimant had been present on the dates in question, he would have performed any function in connection with breaking the bonds, or that the breaking of the bonds would have been accomplished in any different manner than it was accomplished in his absence.


          Under the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that neither the Scope Rule nor cited awards support the claim, and we therefore will deny it."


On the basis of Award No. 6 of Public Law Board No. 1442, between these parties, we shall deny the claim.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whale 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 21883 Page 4

                  Docket Number SG-21384

                  A W A R U


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST. ~~ P,/~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1978.