Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28651
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27290
 91-3-86-3-392
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.

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

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Cor
 portation (CONRAIL):

 Claim on behalf of R. E. Laude, Signal Maintainer, headquartered at Batavia, N.Y., assigned territory Section 12; assigned hours 7:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday; assigned rest days Saturdays, Sundays and holidays; for three (3) hours violated APPENDIX 'P,' paragraph 6 of the current Agreement, as amended, when

 on Monday, February 4, 1985, at 4:30 p.m. it used another employee to repair signal trouble east of C.P. 429 which is located on the Section 12 maintenance territory." Carrier file SD-2224.

 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_b4s jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant is assigned as a Signal Maintainer at Batavia, N.Y. on Section No. 12 from Monday through Friday with assigned hours 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. The Claim arose when Carrier uied an employee not assigned to Section 12 to repair signal circuit troubIE on Monday, February 4, 1985, at 4:30 P.M. The Organization filed a Claim on behalf of the employee for three (3) hours at the punitive rate of pay for Carrier' a_violation of Appendix "P",

 paragraph 6 of the applicable Agreement, which contains the procedure for calling maintainers outside their normal working hours. That Rule states:
 Form 1 Award No. 28651
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27290
 91-3-86-3-392

The Organization argues that paragraph 6 had been violated when an employee not assigned to Section 12 performed the disputed work. It further maintains that since Claimant is regularly assigned to the Signal Maintainer's position in Section 12, he is the first employee to be called in cases of trouble calls on that terr in relying on Paragraph 9 is without merit. Paragraph 9 states:

The Organization asserts that Carrier did not make "a reasonable effort" to comply with Appendix "P" in that no attempt was made to contact Claimant.

 Carrier, on the other hand, argues that the build up of ice and snow on an inoperative switch would have delayed a train scheduled to arrive at 4:53 P.M. Since the C&S Trouble Desk only received the call at 4:20 P.M., Carrier assigned Maintainer Warren, who was on the property performing overtime work on his assignme asserts the provisions of Paragraph 9 suspend the normal overtime calling procedure if it would "delay getting a qualified employee to report promptly at the point necessary to cope with the situation."

 The Board has reviewed the entire recnsb and concludes that the Claim must be denied. In view of the urgency of the situation, Carrier did not violate the Agreement when to SP77Y. The switch malfunction in this-case required immediate action in order to avoid delay. Numerous Awards of this Division have ruled that Carrier has broader latitu the language of Paragraph 9, clearly covers-this situation.

 In Third Division Award 27915, we previously addressed this same issue between the same parties. Thus, consistent-with the time honored doctrine of stare decisis, this Claim must also be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 28651
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-27290
 91-3-86-3-392




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:_7~
 ancy J. D Executive Secretary

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