PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad

(A) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope, when, on February 27, 1982, carrier officer L. G. Gilbert performed recognized signal work when he transported signal material in company truck to East Fisher River, Montana.

Spokane, Washington, time equal to (8) hours at the Signal Foreman time and one
 half rate because of the loss of work opportunity and/or as a consequence of the
 violation. (General Chairman file: SP-82-271. Carrier File: SI 82-5-7B)
OPINION OF BOARD: The basic issue in this dispute is whether Carrier violated
 the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement, when a non-Agreement
 employe on February 27, 1982,'transported signal material in a Company truck to
 East River Fisher, Montana. On the date aforesaid, Communication and Signal
 Supervisor L. G. Gilbert was required to drive to East River Fisher, Montana from
 Spokane, Washington to monitor one of his signal crews working at a derailment
 situs. The Signal Crew Foreman at the derailment location apprised Supervisor
 Gilbert of the need for additional insulated rail joints, a power plant and a
 jackhammer; and this equipment was placed on Supervisor Gilbert's Company owned
 truck by Claimant's crew at Spokane. The equipment was transported by Supervisor
 Gilbert to the derailment site, a distance of about 175 miles, and then unloaded
 and used by the Signal Crew working at that point.
In response to this situation, the Local Chairman initiated a claim on March 25, 1982, wherein he asserted the Signalmen's Scope Rule was violated when Supervisor L. G. Gilbert performed recognized signal work when he transported signal material in a Company truck to East River Fisher, Montana. The claim was denied by Carrier.
In defense of its petition, the Organization argues that Carrier's failure to refute or contest the Local Chairman's assertion that the material was for immediate use is an implicit acknowledgement that the Scope Rule was violated. Moreover, it contends that decisional holdings of the Board fully support its position that the work of handling signal material, notwithstanding lack of articulation in the Scope Rule, accrues to Signalmen. In particular, it maintains that Third Division Award No. 5046 is on point with its position, since it held that work in connection with the movement of signal materials from a warehouse or material yard to a signal construction or maintenance job for immediate use is exclusively Signalmen's work. It also cited several other Awards involving Signalmen Scope Rules that did not specifically mention the handling of signal material. (See Third Division Award Nos. 16783, 20873, 13938 and 11437.)
                    Locket Number SG-25056


Carrier asserts that the organization failed to prove that the Scope Rule specifically reserves this right to the Signalmen. It argues that the handling of material has never been exclusively performed by any one group or class of employes on its property and contends that numerous Third Division Awards affirm its position that absence a showing of system-wide exclusivity or explicit Agreement language, a claim must fail for want of substantiation. It cited Third Division Award Nos. 13347, 10613, 11431, among others as controlling authority.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier that the disputed work did not accrue exclusively to the Signalmen. In effect, we do not find that the Scope Rule requires Carrier to send a Craft truck to deliver signal materials or that transporting or delivery is work generally recognized as signal work. in the instant case, we note that Agreement covered employes, not Supervisor L. G. Gilbert, loaded and unloaded the equipment at the points of origin and destination, and to that extent handled signal materials. Under these circumstances, and consistent with our prior rulings, we cannot conclude that the Scope Rule was violated when Supervisor Gilbert merely drove the vehicle.
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 ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division ~~,t-~

                          ~i


                                                        r'


ATTEST' ~~
                                                    `. ` .


        Nanc Dever -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1985.