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

 STATEMENT OF CIAIK: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Trans
 portation Company (former Pacific Electric Railway Company):

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) 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 7 of Article 1, when it allowed a Southern Pacific Communications crew (consisting of one Foreman and four men) to perform work on former Pacific Electric property that properly belongs to former Pacific Electric Signal Employes.

 (b) Messers. F. Suddarth, G. Ochoa, A. Keelia, P. Meaders and R. Jaramillo be allowed eight hours compensation each at their respective Pro Rata rates for the following dates each, October 24, and 25, 1974. ffarrier's file: SIG 152-34V

 Claim No. 2.
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) 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 7 of Article 1, when it allowed a Southern Pacific Communications Employe not subject to the Signalmen's current Agreement to perform work, on former Pacific Electric property, that belongs to former Pacific Electric Signal Employes.

 (b) Mr. G. Ochoa be allowed three hours pay for on or about December 3, 1974 and also three hours pay for on or about December 4, 1974, at the straight time rate."



OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the former Pacific Electric
 Railway Company, which became part of the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) on August 13, 1965 through merger. The work in question, performed by a Communications Crew (represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) of the Southern Pacific Company, was the installation of a Carrier owned telephone cable and its hook-up on Pacific Electric property in late 1974. Petitioner asserts the right to such work by Signal forces on the former Pacific Electric property. In view of the apparent interest in the outcome of the dispute by the electricians of the Southern Pacific Company, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was invited to participate as a third party in this a statement of position for consideration in the resolution of the dispute by this Board.

 Prior to 1951, Pacific Electric maintained a separate telephone system on its property under the jurisdiction of the Signal Engineer and serviced by signal employes coming under the applicable Agreement. That system was abandoned shortly after April of 1968 and a commercial (outside) telephone company operated the telephone system on Pacific Electric property. Since 1963 employes of the Communications Department (electricians) have assisted the commercial telephone company in the maintenance of portions of the cable on Pacific Electric property. On the property of Southern Pacific, the Communications Department employes have been responsible for maintaining the Carrier-owned telephone lines and coordinating their work with that of the ca®ereial company. It must be noted that the record indicates that the work accomplished in late 1974, subject of this dispute, was not under the jurisdiction of the Signal Engineer.

 Petitioner relies in its claim on the provisions of the Scope Rule and Rule 7. Those rules provide:

                    "SCOPE


        This Agreement covers the rates of pay, hours of service, and working conditions of all employes, classified in Article 1, engaged in the supervision, construction, installation, repair, reconditioning, inspecting, testing and maintenance, either in the shop or in the field, of any and all signal and telephone systems and/or interlocking systems, including all appartus and dev connection therewith, and such other work as is generally recognized as signal work."

                    Award Number 22144 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21696


        Article 1 (Rule 7) provides:


        "Rule 7. Signalman: An employe assigned to perform mechanic's work on electrical or mechanical signal or telephone apparatus under the jurisdiction of the Signal Engineer."


In addition, Petitioner asserts that the work in question was under the jurisdiction of the Signal Engineer. However, no factual basis for this latter assertion appears in the record.

 This dispute turns on whether or not the Scope .Rule together with Rule 7 control who may perform the work in question. An exem-Ina- tion of the Scope Rule indicates that it is general; furthermore, a classification rule does not per se constitute a reservation of work rule. It follows, then, that Petitioner, in order to prevail must establish a customary and historical exclusive right to the work in question. No such evidence was presented in the handling of this dispute. In fact, Carrier alleged that Communication employes have performed the type of work in ,dispute, rather than Signal Employes over the last number of years. Since Petitioner has not supported its Claim by either Rule or practice, 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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Number 22144 Page 4

                    Docket Number SG-21696

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


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