(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATFMEftT OF CLAlTi: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation (former


          Atlantic Region-Lehigh Division Case AISI-5-80


          On behalf of Assistant Signal Maintainer M. Springer for four (4) hours at the time and one half rate account not used for overtime at Steel Toner on May 1, 1980."


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant contends that Carrier violated Article 2, Section 10,
 Paragraph K of the controlling Agreement and Articles 5 and 6 of the Galling Procedures Agreement when it called a Signal Maintainer on May 1, 1980 from an adjacent territory to investigate a track indication within interlocking limits at Steel to 4:45 A.M.

 Carrier argues that it was consistent with the aforesaid Agreements to use a Signal Maintainer or a Signalman to investigate the trouble in the interlocking system, since as a Signalman.or Signal Maintainer and thus, was ineligible for this call.

 In our review of this case, we agree with Claimant's position, but only to the extent that our decision singularly applies to this factual situation. Prior to the -June 18, 1981 Letter of Understanding, wherein the parties had agreed that the term "qualified employes" as used in Item 5 of the Calling Agreement, shall mean employee currently working in the SignalmanAainteiners class qualified to perform work, Carrier had permitted Assistant Signalmen at the Steel Tower sites to be placed on the call list for maintainers work and this indisputable practice must be Judicially recognized for purposes of equitably resolving this grievance. The call list at the time Signal Maintainer J. Decker was used in lieu of Claimant included the Assistant Signalman's position and Claimant was entitled to be called for this work. The June 18, 1981 Letter of Understanding, of course, pointedly changed this practice, but it did not negate the instant claim. The claim rill be sustained because at the time and place in question, the call list included the Assistant Maintainers who had a right to be called for Maintainers work.
 Award Number 23821
 Docket Number SG-2291

 Page 2

        FILINGS: 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 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.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
      National Railroad Adyusiwnt Board


BY
 .,,~7osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of Jute 1982·

 NATIONAL RAILROAD AWIFuTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division