(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
 ( (Formerly The Texas and Pacific Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the former Texas & Pacific
 Railway Company:

 On behalf of Signal Maintainer P. R. Sumpter, Tower 55, Fort Worth, Texas, for an additional 8 hours pay at time and one-half his straight time hourly rate of $6.95 per hour, account being required by a Carrier officer to use his personal pickup truck to perform non Scope work, outside working hours, on June 15, 1976." _/Tarrier file: K 315-1267

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a claim requesting an additional eight (8)
 hours at the rate of time and one-half because
 Claimant was allegedly required to perform work outside the scope of
 the agreement. The facts indicate that while Claimant was on duty on
 the claim date, Carrier's Superintendent, while passing in a hi-rail
 car, saw a piece of scrap wire lying on the ground which Carrier says.
 came from signal repairs. The Superintendent threw the scrap wire
 into the rear of Claimant's new pick-up truck and instructed him to
 remove it from railroad property.

 We certainly do not believe that the Superintendent's conduct, in throwing the wire into Claimant's new truck, is a model for employeremploye relations. In fact, i his property. Carrier admittedly recognizes that the Superintendent acted harshly.

 Nevertheless, our jurisdiction is confined to the interpretation of existing labor contracts. We which would provide Claimant the payment herein desired, and we also conclude that the removal of the scrap wire from the property certainly could be required of Claimant under these circumstances. The Petitioner has cited no rule which would exclude work of this nature from the duties of signalmen. Under these circumstances, Claimant is before the
 Award Number 22232
 Docket Number SG-22285

 Page 2

 wrong forum in seeking compensation. If Claimant's vehicle was damaged by the Superintendent's action, his redress would be with Carrier's claim department or other judicial forums having jurisdiction over such matters. We accordingly must dismiss the claim.

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 claim be dismissed.

 A W A R D
Claim dismissed.

 ATTEST:

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of November 1978.