Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28879
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29223
 91-3-90-3-108
 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: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (Seaboard System Railroad (SCL))

On behalf of R.D. Platt et al., for payment of 88 hours pay each at their respective rates of pay at the 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 non-Agreement personnel to assemble or install retarder cylinders on ties to be used at Rice Yards." Carrier file 15(89-42). BRS file Case No. 7917-SSR-SCL.

 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 scope dispute involves the purchase of forty-four (44) master retarder cylinders complete with cross ties for use at Rice Yard, Waycross, Georgia. After delivery, the equipment was unloaded by Claimant Signal Maintainers on March 1 and 2, Gang. The Organization contends the pre-assembly of car retarder components is a violation of the Scope Rule. Apparently, both parties acknowledge the disputed work involves the bolting of forty-four (44) retarder cylinders to cross ties. The Carrier argues the purchase of pre-assembled signal equipment is supported by prior Third Division Awards. Essentially, the Carrier maintains the Scope Rule does equipment.

 In Third Division Award 23020, the purchase of pre-assembled car retarders was also involved. It was found that the disputed work was completed prior to the time the Commenting on the Scope Rule, the Board stated in relevant part:
 Form 1 Award No. 28879
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29223
 91-3-90-3-108
 "Here these rights have not yet attached. In short,
 the purchasing of a finished product, in the cir
 cumstances presented here, cannot be viewed as the
 contracting out or the farming out of bargaining unit
 work.
 This Board has consistently held that Carrier may
 purchase assembled equipment without violating the

This Board has reviewed Award 21824, as well as Award 21232 cited in Award 21824, and adopts the reasoning of those Awards, which hold the Agreement does not apply and t Carrier takes possession on the property.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J~ r -,Executive Secretary


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