(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES 70 DISft=:
              (Soo Line Railroad Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
              Railroad Signalmen on the Soo Line Railroad Company:


On behalf of Signal Maintainer L. D. Suhsea for eight hours' pay account communication workers installed a hot bas detector on or about July 9, 1979Wd two hours' pay each week thereafter account communication corkers assigned to maintain this equipment."

 OPINION OF HOARD: On or about July 9, 1980, two lights were installed on the
 "hot box" detector house at Buffalo, Minnesota. The purpose of these lights was to advise an approaching train crew if the facility was "turned on", and if so, if any overheated wheel bearings, etc,,, were detected.

 The petitioner contends that these lights constitute a signal device under the terms of his agreement with the (terrier, especially inasmuch as there was a connection to the centralized traffic control code line. The Carrier contends that there thereon to its communications workers, represented by the LH.E.W. The Carrier also contends that the LB.E.W. is an interested party in this dispute and requests that we give noti
The electricians' representative asserts that electricians have performed the work here is dispute s thereof. As we view that exhibit, it refers to the "hot box" detector rather than the lights which are is dispute here, and since the electricians' submission is devoid of nay evidence of past performance of this work and there being no reference thereto is the quoted classification rule, we must dismiss the electricians claim to this work.

 The Carrier has shown that the Scope Rule of the petitioner's agreement does not specifically name the facility here in dispute; it further shows that the petitioner has not heretofore performed any like work. Under an agreement such $s that here preset, in order to prevail the petitioner must demonstrate that the work sought was conveyed-to the covered employee by that agreement,; one way of shoring that is by past practice, another is by the unambiguous language of the agreement. The present petitioner refers to the Scope Role of the parties' agreement and to definiti We are also directed to certain awards of this Board. We are impressed by these citations, but none of them is sufficient to establish that it was the intent of the present parties to reserve this work to these employee. Therefore the Hoard denies the Claim.
 Award Number 24016
 Docket Number SG-23916

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 _-...-..:es.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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the messing of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board hoe jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

 Page 2

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 By SLJ

      osemarie Breach - stra ive ssis e~


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of October 1982.

 aG~;kVED

 'Chl-cago 0 *kce,
 ic ivkce