Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman
 PARTIES Td DISPUTE:
 (Southern Railway Company

              STATEMENT CF CLAIM: *Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Siglmlman


(a) Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 3q, effective May 1, 1974, revised August T, 1974, of the Signalman's Agreement, when they failed or refused to call. Signal Ma June 14 and 15, 1980 to xeir a signal failure on Signal Maintsinmr Jo==n's territory which joins Signal Maintainer Green's territory on the loath end. carrier called Signal Maintainer R. B. Govdy who was on vacation and not held fox call on June 15, 1980 at 7 FM to repair the signal trouble.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer D. A. Green an amount equal to two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes at his overtime rata of pay on June 15, 1980, because of this loss of work opportunity and because the Agreement vas violated.' .

 (General Cbaifan File No. SR-184 Carrier File No. SG-467)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The M=lmant is this dispute is a Signal Maintainer and
 he asserts that on the pertinent date he vas "being held
 for call on his am territory and adjacent territories." Nonetheless, the
 Carrier called to duty another Signal Maintainer who vas on vacation at the
 time, and the Organization asserts a violation of Rule 37.

 The Carrier has responded that the difficulty occurred at a location which was beyond the area for which the Claimant wan held subject to call and that there vas no requirement under the Agreement that he be contacted and offered the work. In fact, the Carrier maintains that the territory involved was immediately adjacent to the Claimant's territory and vas assigned to a different individual..

 We are unable to find anything in the record which compels the conclusion that this Claimant had a contractual right to be called and utilised on the day is question and accordingly we will deny the claim.

 FINDIRGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
 Avard Number 24377
 Docket Number SG-24309

 Page 2

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively terrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Inbor 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 vat violated.

 A W A H D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board.


By

 NATIONAL RAIi.ROAD ADJWT,MT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Rosemarie Brnsdi - aiatsative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, nl.iaois, this 13th day of army 1983.