Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28878
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29168
 91-3-90-3-12
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

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

On behalf of T. A. Hildebrand, G. L. Burch, R. E. Stegall, D. Smith, K. L. Dixon, T. M. Weil, R. M. Hinton and R. Howard; claimants.

 A. Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement of 9/1/81 parti
 culary (sic) the 'Scope' which states in part; ... construction, installation,
 repair, inspection, testing... of the following signal equipment and control
 systems including... Remote control of switch and signal systems...

 B. Carrier violated the 'Scope' which further states in part; The follow
 ing items of work on the former railroad indicated will continue to be per
 formed by employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen:
 Pennsylvania Railroad, ... and Dayton Union Railway Company. Installation and
 Maintainance (sic) of all Telegraph and telephone lines and equipment...
 (entire Scope reproduced and enclosed)

 C. The work of installing and maintaining cable at former Dayton Union
 Railway Co. has in the past and on the effective date of our Agreement accrued
 to B.R.S. represented employees. (documentation enclosed)

 D. The work claimed has for many years accrued to B.R.S. employes by
 agreement between the former Dayton Union Railway Co. and the B.R.S. (docu
 mentation enclosed)

 E. The cable involved in the work was to contain a 'code line'; part of
 the remote control of switch and signal systems and communication lines, re
 ferred to in parts A. 6 B. above.

 F. Carrier should now compensate claimants 120 hours each at the appli
 cable straight time rate.

 G. Carrier's actions constitutes a loss of work opportunity." Carrier
 file SG-37.
 Form 1 Award No. 28878
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29168
 91-3-90-3-12
 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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) was advis Submission with the Division. The IBEW also appeared before the Board with the Referee present.

 Between July 25 and August 11, 1988, the Carrier used employees working within the Scope of the property of the former Dayton Union Railway, one of the predecessor carriers of the Consolidated Rail Corporation. This cable, which originated on the former New York Central Railroad property, another predecessor carrier, served both the signal and the communication systems. The Organization asserts that cable work performed on the former Dayton Union property accrues exclusively to employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.

 The Organization relies upon the September 1, 1981, Agreement, which contains the following provisions as part of its Scope Rule:






Form 1 Award No. 28878
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-29168
 91-3-90-3-12
 power supply are used wholly or primarily for tele
 graph and telephone devices, apparatus or lines, and
 are individually housed in Signal or telegraph and
 telephone facilities) which are part of the telegraph
 and telephone systems, to the extent that such work
 is not being performed by employes of the Communi
 cation and Signal Department.
 It is understood and agreed in the application of
 this Scope that any work specified herein which is
 being performed on the property of any former com
 ponent railroad by employees other than those repre
 sented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen may
 continue to be performed by such other employees at
 the location at which such work was performed by past
 practice or agreement on the effective date of the
 Agreement; and it is also understood that work not
 included within this 'Scope which is being performed
 on the property of any former component railroad by
 employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen will not be removed from such employees at
 the location at which such work was performed by past
 practice or agreement on the effective date of the
 Agreement."

 The Organization avers employees covered by the BRS Agreement have historically performed all cable installation work on the former Dayton Union property. It supports this assertion with a statement from a Foreman in Communication and Signal attesting that such work was performed at least as early as May 1974. It further submits that the former Dayton Union did not have an Agreement with the IBEW nor did it have any IBEW represented employees. Finally, the Organiz question was to serve the signal system. For this reason, the Organization argues Claimants should have performed the work.

 The Carrier concedes employees under the Scope of the BRS Agreement perform cable repairs within Dayton Union Terminal, but asserts this is limited to former Dayton Union and former Pennsylvania Railroad (another predecessor carrier) cable. Cable originating on the property of the former New York Central has historically been repaired and/or replaced by members of the IBEW, according to the Carrier. Therefore, concludes the Carrier, this is work which may remain with the IBEW employees in accordance with the September 1, 1981, Agreement. In its Statement of Facts, however, the Carrier says:
 Form 1 Award No. 28878
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-29168
 91-3-90-3-12
 "Prior to the Penn Central merger, Dayton Union
 Terminal was at a point crossed by both former PRR
 and NYC. Dayton Union has its own signal force
 represented by BRS. Signal and communication cables
 originating on the respective Carriers was (sic) in
 stalled and serviced by the separate Carriers, such
 cables terminating on junction boxes within the
 Dayton Union depot, where the Dayton Union Signalmen
 completed the run of communication and signal cir
 cuits in the various signal and communication in
 use."

 The IBEW, for its part, argues it has employees within the Scope of its Agreement who have retained prior Dayton Union Railway seniority rights on a new regional Seniority District #14. The record shows, however, that these employees are shopcraft employees rather than linemen. Adaitionally, the IBEW relies upon the Scope Rule of its Agreement with the Carrier. This Rule contains language similar to the provision in the BRS Agreement concerning the continuing right of employees in other crafts on component railroads to perform the work which had b
It is evident the intent of the September 1, 1981 Agreement was to maintain the status quo with respect to work being performed on the various component railroads, i.e., those employees who performed specific work prior to the effective date of the Agreement would be permitted to continue to perform such work at the sa including the Carrier's above statement, we conclude the installation, repair and maintenance of both signal and communication cables was work performed exclusively by employees under the Scope of the BRS Agreement when such work was performed between the junction box and the signal or communication device. For cable up to the junction box, however, the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof that such work was performed exclusively by employees under the Scope of its Agreement. While the one statement offered by the Organization establishes such employees performed the work, it falls short of suggesting the work was performed by no one else. On the other hand, the Carrier has documented cable work being performed at Dayton by employees under the IBEW Agreement in 1979.

 In the resolution of this dispute, the issue of whether or not employees under the IBEW Agreemen and maintain the cable up to the junction box need not be addressed. It is sufficient to find such work is not reserved to the Claimants. It should be noted that, in reaching this conclusion, the Board has rejected the Organization's argument that the because the cable was primarily for signal purposes. We find no contractual basis for the Organization's position. The fact remains that the cable served a joint function.
 Form 1 Award No. 28878
 Page 5 Docket No. SG-29168
 91-3-90-3-12

 The disposition of the claim, therefore, is dependent upon the location at which the work was pe cable reached the junction box, the Agreement was not violated and the claim should be denied. If, however, it was after the junction box, the work should have been performed by the Claimants and the claim should be sustained. The record before the Board does not indicate where the work was performed with respect to the junction box. This information should be readily ascertainable from Carrier records. The claim, therefore, is remanded to the parties to make that determination and dispose of the claim in accordance with the above Findings.




                      ' By Order of Third Division


Attest: 6~L Z_'Z"=~

        ancy J. D -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1991.