Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28639
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28645
 91-3-88-3-495
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio
 Railway Company (C60) on behalf of Signal Maintainer J. C. Frye I. D. #2618563
 of Local 136 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen that:

 (a) Carrier did violate the current Signalmen's Agreement particularly Rule 25 (work outside of Carrier did allow or permit another signal employee from Big Sandy Jct. to perform work on the claimant's territory and did not attempt to call claimant. The Big Sandy Jct. maintainer was sent to the claimant's territory five different times throughout t and ice.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate claimant for twelve hours at the time and one half rate of his applicable rate of pay. This is actually less than that of five calls. Carrier file: 15-25 (87-27). G.C. file 87-18 CD.

 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. '

The significant events leading to this dispute began when a snow storm occurred on February 16, 1987, (a holiday), causing a buildup of excessive snow and ice on swi signal employees to clean the snow and ice from the switches.
 Form 1 Award No. 28639
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28645
 91-3-88-3-495

 Pursuant to Section 3, First (j) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, notice was given to the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes of this Claim as a possible party of interest. That party has filed a statement with the Board which
The Board also notes that certain material and arguments have been advanced without proper exchange between the parties on the property. Accordingly, those elements ha in this matter.

 Simply stated, the Organization asserts that the Claimant was available for work on February 16, on the Claimant's territory. Thd employee who performed the work and the Claimant hold their seniority on the Huntington Seniority District. The work at issue was performed in the Ashland territory which falls in the Huntington Seniority District. While a number of issues and various ramifications of these issues have been pursued by both parties, the controlling question is whether or not the Carrier called the Claimant.

 We find the Organization's position persuasive in this matter mainly because the Carrier on the property, after being challenged, did not offer any evidence that it did call the Claimant. Accordingly, we sustain Part (a) of the Claim. With respect to Part (b) of the Claim, we find from the record developed on the property that the work at issue totaled two hours not the claimed twelve hours. Therefore, in summary, Part (a) of the Claim is sustained and Part (b) of the will be compensated for two hours of work.

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


                              a


Attest: ~~
        a ZyJ. D -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1991.