(Brotherhood of Railroad Signaloen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:




R. F. Stanfield# E. G. Hammock and R. Hodges; Signal men M. E. Glenn and
 C. R. Johnson; Floating Signalmen D. P. Johnson and W. E. Wince;
 Traveling Signal Maintainers R. H. Varner, E. E. Murdock and W. S. Hardy,,
 for all man hours worked by contractor employees on removal. of signal pole
 lire between Gordon and Omulgeep Georgia, beginning on Monday, November 6y
 1978p but no less than 120 man hours per week, to be divided equally between
 the claimants, or the amount of $9#900.00 to be divided equally among the
 claimants which,, acccrding to information obtained by the organization is
 the amount carrier paid the contractor to remove the signal pole line.A
 (General chairman file: OG-34. Carrier file: SG-373) . _. . ..,-

 OPINION CF BOARD: The Ohrrier employed an independent contractor to
 remove a signal pole line which had been replaced by
 underground cable which was no longer functioning. The claimants cite the
 scope rule of the contract which is as follows:





              cables pemining to in! er-~.oe~ag

              an3 s.i systems; interlocking and

              Signal Lighting; - torage battery plants

              with charging outfits and switch board

              equipment; sub stations, current gen

              erating and compressed air plants,

              exclusively used by the Signal

              Department,, pipe limes and con

              nections used for Signal Depart

              ment purposes; carpenter, concrete

              and form work in connection with

              signal. and interlocking systems

              (except that required in buildings,

              towers and signal bridges); together

              with all appurtenances pertaining to

              the above named systems and devices,

              as well as any other work generally

              recognized as signal work.

              emphasis


We note that the rule does not specifically include the removal of abandoned pole lines.

 The Oarrier cites Award No. 12800. Upon analysis of this award, which involved the Oarrier's parent eampe,qy, Southern Railway Oonpany and the Brotherhood of Pai3xaT Signalman,, we find that the facts are not sufficiently distinguishable i than that reached In the award.

 In the matter before us., the signal employes had relieved. the pole line of all functions. The abandoned pole line now served no signaling function. Award Foe 12800 provided in part as follows:

              "The Scope Role provides that, 'Signal work shall include the construction, installation, maintenance and repair of signals.' 'he work the contractor performed was the removal of abandoned and retired equipment; since once the signalman had severed the signal connections, the wires, lines, and poles no longer existed as part of a signal system. The work, therefore, did not constitute the installing, maintenance, or repair of 6190&18 covered by the Scope Rule. Our position is consistent with the findings in Award Fns. 8172 and 12023."


We hold that the claim is without merit. The Agreement was not violated.
                  Aoard Number 23259 page 3

                  Docmet Number SG-23290


FIND33GS: Tie Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds;

 That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway labor Art, 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 N A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST'iHT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 640~
 P.Soeecntive Secretary

      Dated at Chimp., Illinois, this 15th day of April 1981.