Edward L. Suntrup, Referee


                (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
                Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company:


(a) Carrier violated the Communication Employes Agreements, particularly the Scope Rule of the Memorandum Agreement effective Fabruary (sic) 28, 1980 on the former Gulf District, when it permitted Electronic Technician Bobby Johnson employed by the former Texas and Pacific Railway Company, who holds no rights to any work on the former Gulf District in Communications and is not covered by any Agreements on that portion of the property, to perform Communication Employes work totaling (137) hours on the former Gulf District of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company on the dates and territories as follows at the time and one-half rate:
        Comm. Maintr. T. L. Smith


        3-06-81 Phelps, Tx. 10 hours

        3-10-81 Palestine, and

        Elkart, 7X. 10 hours

        3-11-81 Crockett, Tx. 11 hours

        3-12-81 Trinity, Tx. 4 hours

        3-19-81 Trinity, Crockett

        and Phelps 12 hours

        3-20-81 Palestine and

        Elkhart, TX. 12 hours

        Total = 59 hours


        Comm. Maintr. J. D. McKenzie


        3-04-81 Spring, Tx. 4 hours

        3-14-81 Spring, Tx. 10 hours

        (Saturday)

        3-17-81 Spring, Tx. 8 hours

                    Total = 22 hours


        Comm. Maintr. R. D. Busch


        3-05-81 Conroe, Tx. 12 hours

        3-12-81 Conroe, TX. 4 hours

        3-13-81 New Waverly, Tx. 10 hours

        3-16-81 Conroe, Tx. 12 hours

        3-17-81 Conroe, Tx. 7 hours

        3-18-81 Conroe and

                New Waverly, Tx. 11 hours

                    Total = 56 hours

            Award Number 24718 Page 2

                      Locket Number SG-24719


OPINION OF BOARD: This is a pay claim initiated by the organization on April
 27, 1981 on behalf of three (3) Communication Maintainers named in the Statement of Claim. It is the position of the Organization that the Carrier allegedly violated the Scope Rule of the Communication E7nployees Memorandum Agreement of February 28, 1980 on the former Gulf District when the Carrier assigned an Electronic Technician employed by the former Texas and Pacific Railway Company to perform Communication Maintainer work in that same Gulf District of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.
The narrow issue here at bar is whether the Carrier was contractually justified in using the services of an Electronic Technician employed by the former Texas and Pacific Railway Company. The contract here at bar includes a Scope clause and two (2) attached Notes, here quoted in pertinent part.
        'SCOPE

        A11 employes in the Communications Department of the former Gulf District engaged in the construction,installation, maintenance, repairs, inspection, dismantling and removal of telephone and telegraph transmission lines, and switching systems, and associated equipment, such as telephone, telegraph and teletype equipment, fixed and mobile radio used for railroad operational purposes, closed circuit television, interoffice communications systems, yard speaker systems, electronic weighing machines, and all work recognized as communications work; provided, however, this will not prevent others acting under the direction of a Communications Supervisor or District officer from utilizing spare equipment limited to plug-in modular units requiring no specialized knowledge or skills to restore service in cases of emergency.


        NOTE 1. Nothing above shall prohibit a Supervisor in the Communications Department from inspecting and testing communications equipment and circuits in the performance of his duties.


        NOTE 2. Carrier retains the right to contract major installations of microwave and coaxial cable systems."


The Carrier avers, without rebuttal by the Petitioner, that the work in question was the installation of a major microwave system as referred to in NOTE 2 of the Scope rule, which permits the contracting of such work. The act of the Carrier here complained of was tantamount to contracting to the former Texas & Pacific the work in question; hence, the Board can find nothing in the evidence nor arguments presented by the moving party in this case to permit it to conclude that the Carrier was in contractual error, under Note 2 cited above, when it utilized the Electronic Technician from the former Texas and Pacific Railway Company to perform the work in question.
---------- --
                      Award Number 24718 Page 3

                      Locket Number SG-24719


        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 not violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADUUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy ver·- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 9th day of March, 1984