Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27181
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-26862
 88-3-85-3-635
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail

On behalf of R. E. Evertts, Jr., 037878 Maintainer CSS, Section 306 with headquarters at Lemo C&S Bldg., Lemoyne, PA.

 A. Claim that the Company violated the Current Agreement between Consolidated Rail Corporation and Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, particularly Rule 4-B-2(b) and below they used T. J. Finegan, Maintainer CSS, Rockville Tower, to clear trouble at Day Tower (Creek) on the 31 switch, which is on Maintainer Evertts' Section 306.

B. Claim that since R. E. Evertts, Jr., was not given the opportunity to perform the extra duty three (3) hours at the time and one-half rate of pay for his present position, which is stated above. Carrier file #SD-2174."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant is employed as a Maintainer C&S by Carrier, at Lemoyne, Pa., with an assigned territory of Section 306. On October 22, 1984, a junior Maintainer was used to clear trouble at a location within Section 306. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging Carrier's use of the junior Form 1 Award No. 27181
 Page 2 Docket No. SC-26862
 88-3-85-3-635

 This Board has reviewed the evidence in this case, and we find that the current Agreement and Appendix P, Rules 6 and 8, require that a regularly assigned maintainer should be the first on the call list for overtime work in his assigned territory. Therefore, the Claimant, who was the regularly assigned signal maintainer, should have been called to perform the overtime work in his assigned territory. Consequently, the Carrier violated the Agreement.

 With respect to the remedy, as in Third Division Award 17743, Claimant is entitled to receive th performed the overtime service. Rule 4-B-2(b) stipulates payment at the time and one-half rate. Therefore, the claim must be sustained.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: _
      Nancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1988.