NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 25055
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-24343
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et a1.:
(al Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1 and Rule 37, when they permitted Maintenance of Way employees and Bankhead Welder employees to change out and renew insulation in glued insulated joints to Mile Posts 84.5, 87.5 and 93.5 on Saturday and Sunday June 14 and 15, 1980 and did not call Signal Maintainer J. E. Bennett to perform the Signal Maintainer duties in connection with renewing insulation in insulated joints. Maintenance of Way employees worked ten (10) hours on June 14, 1980 and nine (9) hours on June 15, 1980 renewing the insulation in the insulated joints.
(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer J. E. Bennett an amount equal to ten (10) hours overtime on June 14, 1980 and nine (9) hours overtime on June 15, 1980 for this loss of work opportunity and because Maintenance of Way employees were permitted to perform duties assigned to signal employees in connection with changing and renewing insulation in insulated joints in violation of the Signalmen's Agreement.
(General Chairman file: SR-189. Carrier file: SG-469)
OPINION OF BOARD: On Saturday, June 14, 1980, and Sunday, June 15, 1980, Carrier
 used Maintenance of Way Employes and a subcontractor to
 change out and renew insulation in glued insulated joints at Mile Posts 84.5,
 87.5, and 93.5. The Organization filed a claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer
 J. E. Bennett. It alleges that other than Signal employes covered by the
 current Signalmen's Agreement cannot work on insulated joints.
A review of the record of this case reveals that Carrier subcontracted the repair of the three joints in question to Hankhead Welder. A Maintenance of Way Supervisor was on hand to protect the interest of Carrier. It also reveals that Claimant made tests on the renewed joints, even though he did not participate in the rebuilding of the joints.
Petitioner relies on the Scope Rule and on practice on the Railroad to support its position.
Carrier contends that the Scope Rule is general in nature and that renewal of epoxy-glued joints is work never performed by Signalmen on this property. Carrier argues that the work in question is new work not in existence when the Scope Rule was agreed upon. Consequently, it does not belong exclusively to Signalmen.

                      Award Number 25055 fk4eV2R 1984

                      Docket Number SG-24343

                      ~c~`Office-eM~


Third Division Award No. 20684 addressed the identical issue before us in this case. In that Award, the Division clearly and at some length stated its position on the rights of Signalmen in relation to the assembly, installation, and inspection of epoxy-glued joints. That reasoning applies equally as well to the instant case. We are therefore compelled to deny the instant claim.
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a1-1 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 ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: z
        Nancy . DL~'ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of October 1984.