(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company
 ( The Western Railway of Alabama
 ( Georgia Railroad

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Atlanta and West
 Point Railroad Ccmpaz7, The Western Railway of Alabama, Georgia
 Railroad, on behalf of Signalmen J. L. Yancey and Scott H. Glover,
 assigned to signal gang, T. C. Wallace Foreman, for eight (8) hours
 straight time on February 24, 1977, and for ten (10) hours straight
 time on March 7, 1977, for each claimant and to be in addition to aiI
 pay they have already received, because they were required to perform
 telephone work when they were instructed to dismantle telephone line
 between Mayyson Avenue and Atlanta Yard."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants assert that on two separate dates they
 were required to dismantle telephone lines (although
 they were assigned to a signal gang) in violation of Rules 6 and 59(d):









            "either system or emergencies occur, if an employee assigned to the class of work is not available, employees of the other craft may be used to put the system in temporary working order. Permanent repairs will be made by employees in the craft of the work."


on the property, the Carrier asserted that the pole line had been abandoned in place prior to claim dates and all telephone equipment removed and lines cut by maintainers. While roving the poles, the lines were taken up by a Signal Gang, as per past practice when a line was abandoned. Claimant denied any such past practice.

 in its presentation here, Carrier urges that the work did not belong to any craft and thus, Claimants were used to dismantle the telephone lines which had already been cut. It relies upon Award 19994 which held that Rules Agreements contemplate work related to the operation and/or maintenance of the railroad, but not to abandoned facilities.

 in its initial claim, the Employes stated that they were "...required to perform telephone work when they were instructed to rove wires and crrossarms which only carried telephone circuits..." and in further correspondence they cite Rule 59(d) as authority for the proposition that the line should have been dismantled by communications employes.

 our prime difficulty with Carrier's contention is that the Scope Rule, itself, makes specific reference to "dismantling" of cammmication facilities, and it specifies that classified employes perform work covered by the agreement. The same agreement then specifies that Telephone-Telegraph men will perform only communication work. As we understand the Carrier's contentions, if these Claimants had performed. the work in question prior to January 31, 197'%, the agreement would have been violated; but, because it happened after that date, the lines were "abandoned" and the agreement did not apply. We do not read Award 19994 as being quite that restrictive. We accept the validity of that Award, but we feel that it does not apply to these particular facts. These lines were not "abandoned" in the usual context. Rather, they were being retrieved in an orderly fashion, shortly after a conscious, deliberate decision was made concerning service by the Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. When these facts are applied to these specific rules, a violation occurred.
                    Award Number 22652 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-22451


We are not unmindful of Carrier's assertion of past practice, but that was only an assertion devoid of actual proof. Nor have we ignored the Carrier's argument to this Board that no Award of damages should be made because there was no loss of work opportunity. But, that contention was not raised and argued on the property.

        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 re-pectively 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 violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Izzut, Adver4do. By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
                  etary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1979.