(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

On behalf of Signal Foreman P. E. Nickel for twelve hours' pay at one and one half times his regular rate account worked performed by Signal Technician on November 1 and 2, 1979."

 OPINION OF BOARD: This Claim deals with the use of a Pacific Lines Special
 Signal Technician across seniority lines to assist a
 Texas and Louisiana Lines Signal Maintainer who was attempting to correct a
 signal failure at a road crossing in E1 Paso, Texas on November lst and tad,
 1979· Petitioner alleges that the work should have been assigned to a
 Pacific Lines Signal. Foreman, the Claimant herein, who was assigned to a
 "Joint gang" whose territory included the E1 Paso location.

 The record indicates that the Carrier's assignment of the work would have been permitted under a letter agreement dated June 15, 1978. However, that agreement was cancelled by letter dated March 15, 1979

 Carrier argues that the Claim was amended in untimely fashion seeking twelve hours compensation at the overtime rate, in lieu of the straight time rate initially claimed. The changed claim was received some 143 days after the dates of the incidents complained of. Carrier's position is correct; the amendment was untimely and will be disregarded.

 Carrier takes the position that the work in question was of an emergency type and justified the use of an employe from an otherwise improper seniority district (since no Signal Technician from the proper district was available). Furthermore. Carrier urges that the Claimant herein was fully employed on the dates in question, suffered no loss of compensation, and was an improper Claimant at best.

 Petitioner argues that the emergency argument was not raised in the handling of this dispute on the property and furthermore is not supported by any evidence. In addition it is noted that Claimant herein had a right to work in the District involved and clearly was able to perform the work in question.


The Board notes that the issue of the identity of the Claimant has been raised in numerous prior disputes (see for example Awards 5195 and 20090 of this Division). This Board has held consistently that even though claims might have been made on behalf of other employes who may have had better rights to the claim, that fact is of no concern to Carrier nor does it relieve Carrier from the consequences of a violation of the Agreement.

 It is noted that the emergency nature of the work was not established by the record, important t is also evident that Carrier had no contractual right to assign the work to an employe who had no seniority on the T & L Lines. With respect to the duration of the work, the record is clear that it encompassed seven hours, not twelve as claimed by Petitioner. Therefore, the Claim will be allowed for seven hours at straight time pay.

 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 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 in accordance with the opinion,


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADYUSTMENT HOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


~~cEivE~ ,
 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board ~r G ·.^^^

                                          r ,Y


By\`~
 Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant --

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of march 1983.