Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28352
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28487
 90-3-88-3-290
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

Claim on behalf of Signalmen J. Simcsak, R. Glaser, T. Carman, T. Murdock and C. Sumoski for eight hours pay each at their respective pro-rata rates of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope Rule, when it used B&B Welders to weld a stainless steel bead on the head of the rail between MP 24.4 and MP 41.0, on 24 crossings on the Bethlehem Secondary. Carrier file SD-2418."

 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 employes 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.

This dispute involves a matter possibly affecting a Third Party at Interest, namely the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. That Organization was provided the Board's consideration.

 At issue here is the welding of stainless steel beads on rails at 24 railroad-highway crossings on the Bethlehem Secondary, beginning May 21, 1987. This work was performed by Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. The Organization herein asserts that the work should be performed by Signalmen.
 Form 1 Award No. 28352
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28487
 90-3-88-3-290

 The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, in the their respective Scope Rules. The principal defense of the Carrier on the property, however, is that there were no Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen employees qualified to perform the work of stainless-steel welding. The Carrier does agree that Brot upon to do other types of welding.

 The Board has no basis to dispute the Carrier's judgment on this point. More significantly, the Organization has not provided convincing evidence contrary to such ju apart from varying assertions as to the Scope Rules involved.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
                  ,Nancy J r -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1990.