(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood



A. Carrier violated the current agreement when it deprived claimants Mr. W. F. Keller IB14P11896 and Mr. C. D. Lowing IBWP10083, Communications Technicians who occupy positions in the communications installer gang #31, pre-determined overtime on carrier's right of way (Montauk Branch) between Freeport, N. Y. and Babylon, N. Y. on March 27, 28 and 29th 1976. Employees from other communications gangs worked on the aforementioned dates, but did not work on the project (rule 261 signal revision) prior to March 27, 28 and 29th 1976. The provisions of the pre-determined overtime rule appear below for ready reference:










B. Carrier should now be required to compensate the claimants communication technicians aforementioned sixteen hours (16) at time and one half their regular rate, which is $8.2379 per hour. In addition there is a weekend differential of 107 for sixteen hours (16)."
                  Docket Number SG-22117


OPINION OF BOARD: This claim was filed on behalf of two communica
 tions technicians who are alleged to have been
 deprived of certain overtime'-work properly assigned to them under
 the pre-determined overtime rule (Rule 42).

    "RULE 42 -- PRE-DETERMINED OVERTIME


    1. When a portion of a particular gang must be worked on pre-determined overtime, those with greatest seniority will be given first opportunity on the following basis:


            (a) That such employes are able and qualified for the particular job;


            (b) That such employes are members of the gang working on the project prior to the overtime date; and


            (c) That the scheduled overtime is a continuance of the project worked prior to the overtime date."


            Factual basis for the instant claim is as follows:


A new automatic signal system was being installed by the carrier during the time in question. The communications technicians were used to perform certain communications installation work. On the claim dates communications maintainers were called to be available to provide maintenance for the system should that be required.

 Under Rule 42 the claimants would be entitled to the work if (1) they were members of the gang working on the project prior to the overtime date or (2) the work was a continuance of the project work prior to the overtime date. Such is not the casein the instant matter. We were persuaded that the communications technicians had completed their installation work and that the work in question properly fell into the category of maintenance. It is clear that two distinct groups of employes were maintained and that the carrier assigned the work in question to the proper group.
                    Award Number 22302 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-22117


        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.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: h~ k

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February 1979.