(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company:

 On behalf of Signal Foreman D. L. Landrum, Signalmen R. R. Shaver and J. R Tyson, and Assistant Signalmen R. D. Gatewood, L. L. Barnes and R. A. Martinez, for 21 1 hours' each at their time and one-half rate account they were not allowed to take down signal line wires at Spring, Texas. Instead, the Communications line gang was used to perform this work in violation of the Scope Rule, 6 k hours on August 18, 5 hours on August 19, 8 hours on August 22, and 2 hours. on August 23, 1977."

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose when the respondent Carrier used
 Communication forces to dismantle and remove a segment of dual purpose pole line which had formerly' been a part of its communication and signal systems. A of Carrier's tracks opposite from the old pole line had been constructed by using both Communication and Signal forces. The new segment had been placed into service, and use of the old segment discontinued.

 The petitioning Employes contend that the Carrier's conduct constituted a violation of the parties' Agreement. That Agreement embraces the work of " * * * the construction, installation, maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of signals and signal systems Cetc./ * * * and all other work generally recognized as signal work * * *."

 We are constrained to observe that the Petitioner has not shown that the work in question constituted, or was any part of the construction, installation, maintenance, repair, inspection or testing of a signal or signal system letc /; neither has Petitioner shown that work of the type here in question has by custom, tradition or practice been recognized by these parties as constituting signal work. It follows that the Petitioner


has not made a prima facie case and thereby has failed to meet its miniun= burden of proof. In the light of this holding it is not necessary that we examine the Carrier's defenses, and our not doing so does not constitute an endorsement of them.



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



        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4a /4/1
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1980: