PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway System, et a1.:


(a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1 and the established practice, when they permitted Bankhead Welder Employees and Track Supervisor Toby Johnson to perform the insulation renewal in insulated joints that has historically been recognized as signal work covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement. The insulated joint renewal was performed on Signal Maintainer Vinson's assignment on October 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1981 and Claimant was not permitted to assist in the renewal of the insulation.
(b) Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer C. L. Vinson an amount equal to the hours of work he was denied in the amount of 32 hours straight time and 35 hours overtime and is to be in addition to any other pay he has received because of this loss of work that has historically been performed by him.
Track Supervisor Toby Johnson and Bankhead Welder employees spent the following time renewing insylation in glued insulated joints on Signal Maintainer C. L. Vinson's assignment between MP 83.2 and MP 105:







for a total of 32 hours straight time and a total of 35 hours overtime.


(a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1 as well as an established practice, when they permitted Bankhead Welder Employees and Track Supervisor Toby Johnson to perform the insulation renewal in insulated joints that has historically been recognized as signal work covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement. The insulated joint renewal was performed on Signal Maintainer Stevens' assignment on October 12, 13, 20, 21, 24 and 25, 1981 and November 3, 4, 5 and 10, 1981, and Claimant was not permitted to assist in the renewal of the insulation.
                    Locket Number SG-24899


(b) Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer W. D. Stevens an amount equal to the hours of work he was denied in the amount of 27 hours straight time and 29-1/2 hours overtime in addition to any other pay he has received because of this loss of work that has historically been performed by him.
Track Supervisor Toby Johnson and Bankhead Welder employees spent the following time renewing insulation in glued insulated joints on Signal Maintainer W. D. Stevens ' assignment between MP 105 and MP 118.5:
    October 12, 1981 3-1/2 hours overtime

    October 13, 1981 1/2 hour overtime

    October 20, 1981 2 hours overtime

    October 21, 1981 3-1/2 hours overtime

    October 24, 1981 5-1/2 hours overtime

    October 25, 1981 10-1/2 hours overtime

    November 3, 1981 2 hours overtime and 8 hours straight time

    November 4, 1981 2 hours overtime and 8 hours straight time

    November 5, 1981 7 hours straight time

    November 10, 1981 4 hours straight time


for a total of 27 hours straight time and 29-1/2 hours overtime that was spent renewing insulation in insulated joints on Signal Maintainer Stevens' assignment that he was not allowed to assist.
        Claim No. 3. General Chairman file: SR-257. Carrier file: SG-530.


(a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1,. as well as an established practice, when they permitted Bankhead Welder Employees and Track Supervisor Toby Johnson to perform the insulation renewal in insulated joints that has historically been recognized as signal work covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement and has been performed by signal employees. The insulated joint renewal was performed on Signal Maintainer Davis' assignment on October 23, 24, 26 and 27, 1981 and November 6, 7, 8, 17 and 19, 1981 and Signal Maintainer Davis was not permitted to assist in the renewal of the insulation.
(b) Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer J. D. Davis an amount equal to the hours of work he was denied in the amount of 31 hours straight time and 30-1/2 hours overtime in addition to any other pay he has received because of this loss of work that has historically been performed by him and is covered by the Scope of the agreement.
Track Supervisor Toby Johnson and Bankhead Welder employees spent the following time renewing insulation in glued insulated joints on Signal Maintainer J. D. Davis' assignment between MP 118.5 and MP 135 and Signal Maintainer Davis was not permitted to assist in the renewal of the insulation.
                      Award Number 25500 Page 3

                      Locket Number SG-24899


    October 23, 1981 Straight time 0 Overtime 3 hours MP 119.2

    October 24, 1981 Straight time 0 Overtime 5-1/2 hours MP 119.3

    October 26, 1981 Straight time 8 Overtime 0 MP 120.9

    October 27, 1981 Straight time 2 Overtime 0 MP 121

    November 6, 1981 Straight time 5 Overtime O MP 123.2

    November 7, 1981 Straight time 0 Overtime 11 hours MP 125.6

    November 8, 1981 Straight time 0 Overtime 9 hours MP 130.1

    November 17, 1981 Straight time 8 Overtime 2 hours MP 132.5

    November 19, 1981 Straight time 8 Overtime 0 MP 134.8


for a total of 31 hours straight time and 30-1/2 hours overtime.
OPINION OF BOARD: The several claims involved in this matter all relate to
 the allegation that foremen and outside contractors performed
 work reserved to signal forces by the Scope Rule: that is, changing insulation
 in insulated joints. A closely related dispute was handled by this Division in
 Award No. 25055 and previously in Award No. 20684.
As in the previous disputes, supra, when the outside contractor performed the work on the insulated joints, using the new technology, signal maintainers had the same responsibility which they had always had with respect to this type of work, namely inspection and observation to ensure that the work was properly accomplished. Signal forces had not done the type of work complained of herein in the past and there is no rule support for their position that it was improperly performed by others in this instance.
It has long been accepted that there must be finality in the resolution of disputes. The dispute herein between the same parties was disposed of in Award 25055 and the matter herein should be considered res judicata. It will be denied.
FINDINGS: 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 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 4 Nancy er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June 1985.