Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28652
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28729
 91-3-89-3-106
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

On behalf of R. E. Lee for four hours pay at his pro-rata rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope Rule, when it allowed or permitted a Communication employee to install equipment at D.E.D. - H.W.L. detector equipment, on January 9, 1986." Carrier file 8705226.

 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the Internasional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was advised of the pendency of the dispute, filed a Submission with the Division, and appeared at the Referee hearing.

 This case involves a jurisdictional dispute over work surrounding the installation of so-called "talk-on" hot box detector equipment.

 The Organization asserts that thb notification was always performed through a signal system historically and traditionally installed and maintained by employees represe
Carrier denies that installation and maintenance of radios is reserved to the Organization.

 The IBEW appeared as a Third Party participant and claimed exclusive rights to the work pursuant to its Agreement and cited Second Division Award 7774 and Award 1 of Public Law Board No. 3828.
 Form 1 Award No. 28652
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28729
 91-3-89-3-106

 Repeated reviews of the record as well as the cited authority compels the conclusion that there is simply no easy solution to this question.

 Award No. 1 of Public Law Board No. 3828 (dated May 20, 1986) cites Second Division Award 7774 but makes no reference to Award 4, Public Law Board 3622 (dated January 20, 1986) concerning a different Carrier.

 Public Law Board 3622 was cited and relied upon by the Organization from the outset of this dispute. The Agreement there, as here, referred to installing detector devic transmit the warning signal to the train crew instead of a flashing light and that it did not change the sole purpose of the detector system, but was merely a technological advancement. It considered and dismissed the IBEW's Third Party contention similar to the one presented here.

 The Carrier, of course, argues that neither Organization has exclusive jurisdiction over the work and it may assign same as it sees fit.

 We are pursuaded by the conclusions set forth in Award 4 of PLB 3622 and its subsequent Interpretation and we will sustain the Claim.

 The record raises the fact that the Claimant was fully employed at the time and that no monetary damages should be awarded. Without departing from the concepts outlined in Third Division Award 19899, we recognize that this is a close case and Carrier was faced with the difficult and conflicting jurisdictional Claim. Thus we will decline to order compensation.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ~r
 a~ D -Executive Secretary

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