I/
y



                              John B. LaRoccop Referee


          (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                        (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


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

                        Signalmen on the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad:


          (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement., as amended particularly the Scope Rule,, when it permitted or required Mr, F. M. Cuttsj, Assistant Supervisor of Signals and Communicationss to perform test of signal code line at Oontentnea, N. C. on June 4j, 1979,


          b carrier should now compensate Signal Maintainer A. M. Ezzell two hours ~2; and forty minutes (40) at his time and one-halt' rate of pay, (General Chairman file: 33-A M Ezzell-79. Carrier file: 15-1(79-19) J)"


          OPII11ION OF BOARD: The Organization brings this claim on behalf of a signal

          maintainer who was allegedly deprived of work specifically reserved to signal employes under the Scope clause when the Assistant Supervisor of Signals and Communications purportedly performed a "DB" and frequency test on the code line at Contentnea., North Carolina on June 4, 1979. The Carrier concedes that the supervisor took transmission level readings on the line in the field but it emphatically denies that such work constitutes testing or is otherwise protected by the Scope clause. According to the Carrier, the supervisor was making a routi


          The record contains a substantial factual dispute. The claimant asserts that the supervisor instructed him to meet the supervisor at the location of the suspected l designated placb,, the supervisor had already completed the work. Oonverselys the.Carrier asserts th to the. claimant that he was going to take same readings in an attempt to pinpoint the source of int need not resolve this factual discrepancy to decide this case since we have concluded that the disputed work was protected by the Scope provision.


          The Scope clause of the applicable agreement states that only employes covered by the agreement may engage ins "...inspectingp testing,, maintenance and repair., either in signal shops or in the field# of all signallinge recognized signa devicesp apparatus and equipment necessary to said systems..." The Organization must zealously safeg signal employes under the Scope clause. On the other handy the Carrier's supervisor has an obligation to direct the work force, assign personnel

Award Number 23479
 Docket Number SG-?.3841

 Page 2

 determine if repairs are needed and how repairs are performed within the constraints of the labor agreement. The 1j.ne dividing work reserved exclusively to signal employee (as it is in this case). Thus, we must decide each dispute on a case by case basis by balancing the obligation of the supervisor to check on the operation of equipment with claimant's right to perform physical diagnostic work.

 While the balance of rights is almost equal in this case, we rule that when the supervisor took the transmission level readings, he performed work which constituted equipment inspecting and testing within the meaning of the Scope clause. The supervisor performed work which went beyond his duties as a supervisor and he infringed on claimant's right to perform physical diagnostic work. Before performing the work, the supervisor knew the code line was not operating properly so he was making more than a routine check of the signal system,

 Under the circumstances, claimant is entitled to two hours, forty minutes of pay at the straight time rate in effect on June 4, 1979.

        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 Employee 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.

 JAN 25 1982

 Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion

 ATTEST:

 Executive Secretary

 ~~9°
 NATIONAL RAILROAD AD OfRee - 8~
              J

By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of January 1982.