(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES 1n DISPUTE::
 (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company



On behalf of Messrs. A. Green, G. P. Howard and W. M. Carter, members of Signal Gang No. 2, for sixteen (16) hours at time and one half rate because persons not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement installed appurtenances (railroad crossing signs and track signs) to the crossings signals on or about October 12, 1979.

 (General Chairman file: FWD-79-209. Carrier file: SG-23)

On behalf of Messrs. C. W. Willenborg, W. H. Nevile, S. D. Lavender, H. R. Benthall and D. L. Bottroff, members of Signal Gang No. 3, for sixteen (16) hours at time and one half :ate because persons not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement installed appurtenances (railroad crossing signs and track sins) to the crossings signals on or about October 15, 1979.

 (General Chairman file: FWD-79-213. Carrier file: SG-23)"

 OPINION OF BOARD: This case is the consolidation of two claims brought by
 the Organization on behalf of eight claimants who are
 members of two signal gangs at Wichita Falls and Fort Worth, Teams. The
 Organization charges the Carrier with violating the Scope Rule (Rule 1) when
 persons not covered by the applicable agreement installed railroad crossing
 and track signs at highway grade crossings along the Carrier's line. According
 to the Organization, the signs are appurtenances to highway railroad grade
 crossing protection systems and, therefore, under Rule 1, the installation of
 the signs is specifically reserved to the Signalmen. The Organization requests
 this Board to award the claimants wages lost for being deprived of the work on
 two days in October, 1979.

 The Carrier raises three defenses. First, the Carrier claims the disputed work was not performed at its instigation, not under its control and not primarily for its benefit. The Carrier contends the State of Terns contracted to have the work p
                      Award Number 23481 page 2

                      Docket Number SG-23893


Carrier argues that passive traffic signs can hardly be considered integral to the Carrier's highway grade crossing protection system so such signs are not appurtenant to the signal system. lastly, the Carrier asserts that since the Scope Rule does not refer to passive traffic signs, the Organization must demonstrate (and it has failed to do so) that the disputed work has historically and traditionally been performed by signal employes on a systemwide basis.

 The signs in dispute are designed to warn and inform oncoming motorists concerning the number of tracks at a railroad crossing or to indicate to the motorist that these particular signs are appurtenances to highway railroad grade crossing protection systems within the meaning of subparts (A) and (C) of Rule 1.

 The Organisation refers us to Award No. 3, Case No. 8 of Public Law Hoard 2732 (Lieberman) where the Hoard did not specifically rule that such signs are appurtenances but found that signal employes had exclusively installed the signs for more than thirty years. Thus, the Public Law Hoard sustained the claim but only because the parties by their past practice (on that property) construed the installation of the signs to be within the scope of work reserved to the signal employes* In this case, we have diligently searched the record and we find no evidence presented by the Organization which shows that signal employes have traditionally and historically performed the disputed work on this property. Thus, Award No. 3 of Public Law Hoard No. 2732 provides us with little guidance in deciding this case.

 To demonstrate that the signs are appurtenances specifically covered by Rule 1, the Organization must prove that the signs are an integral part of or essential to the Carrier's highway grade crossing protection system, Third Division Awards No. 11973 (Kane); No. 13857 (Mesi; No. 19251 (Devine) and No. 22705 (Kosher). We rule that the Organization has not met its burden of proof in this case. The signs which are mostly informational in nature are not substantially related to the highway protection system or to the approach or presence of a train. Thus, the disputed work was not exclusively reserved to the signal employes on this 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 Fhi:ployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Fhployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

                                                        t

                      Avard Number 23481 page 3

                      Docket Number 30-23893


That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; nod

        That the Agreement vas not violated.


                        A li A R D


        Claims denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AWHOAnp

                            BY Dyer of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


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