(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al that:

 (a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 37, when they failed or refused to call Signal Maintainer w. R. Reustle out to repair a signal failure on his assignment at Austell, Georgia on September 5, 1980.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer W. R. Reustle an amount equal to two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes overtime because of the loss of work opportunity when carrier refused to call him out to repair the signal failure and because Rule 37 was violated. (General Chairman file: SR-200. Carrier file: SG-480)

 OPINION OF BOARD: At about 3:30 A.M., Friday, September 5, .1980, Train 154

 encountered a dark signal at Austell, Georgia. This occurred on the Claimant's assigned territory, but outside of his assigned working hours of 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Carrier chose not to have the signal failure repaired until Claimant reported on his assigned hours at which time he repaired the failure by replacing a burned - out light bulb.

 It is Organization's position that the Carrier violated Rule 37
 when it failed to immediately call the Claimant outside of his regular working 2-
 hours to repair the signal trouble.

 It is Carrier's position that no one was called, _no work was performed
 and _no rule violation occurred. Carrier stated it as follows: "Certainly the
 fact that a Signal Maintainer is not called represents no violation of the
 Signalmen's Agreement."

 This is not a new matter with these same parties. In a case between them, Award 21728, Referee Smedley said:
 Award ;Gustber 241+09
 Docket Number 9G-24489

 "The organization says that Claimant should have received overtime calls rather than being directed to fix signals when he got to work. Neither Rule, 'in that case 36 here 37, ...' or any contract provision supports the claim. In the absence of a contract requirement to the eontrary, the Carrier retains the prerogative to direct when work .hall be performed.°

 Page 2

 We are in accord. The burden of proof is upon the Organization to show an Agreement violation. There has been none shown here.

 FILLINGS: 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:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the F#ilvay 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 vas not violated.

 Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary

RATIONAL RAa.ROAD ADJUSMRT BOARD
 By order of Third Division

 Rosemarie Branch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, I111nois, this 15th day of June 1983.