Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28928
 THIRD DIVISION Docket "lo. SG-29224
 91-3-90-3-105
 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:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern

On behalf of the members of the Oakland and Niles Signal Gangs, for payment of eight (8) hours each, for each day worked by the Santa Clara Gang No. 2, on the Western Seniority, District, beginning November 11, 1988 and continuing until this violation is stopped, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Rule 37, when it allowed or permitted employees not having seniority on the Western District to perform work on that Seniority District." Carrier file SIG-37-56. BRS file Case No. 7898-SPTC-WL.

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 On November 8, 1988, the Carrier wrote to the Organization's General Chairman informing him as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 28928
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29224
 91-3-90-3-105
 Eastern Seniority District, Sacramento Western
 Division."

 The Organization filed the instant Claim on November 22, 1988, asserting the Carrier was not authorized to move the gang off its seniority district. The Claim the Coast Division. According to the record, this occurred on December 20, 1988. During the time covered by the Claim, Signal Gang No. 2 worked with the Claimants (the Oakland and Niles Signal Gangs) at Fruitvale Tower. The Carrier explained the scope of the job and the time frame within which it had to be completed necessitated the movement of the gang.

 The Organization bases its Claim upon Rule 37 - Seniority Restrictions, which reads as follows:

The Carrier does not deny it moved Signal Gang No. 2 off its territory. In its Submission before this Board, the Carrier argues the move was made under the provisions of Rule 63 - Temporary Transfers, which reads as follows:

The Organization has objected to the Carrier's reference to this Rule asserting it was never cited during the handling of this dispute on the property. Although the Carri the Claim, we find the Organization's objection well taken. The Carrier neither cited the Rule by number nor used language similar to that contained in the Rule. Furthermore, the Organization correctly points out the Rule provides for the movement o not the case herein. We conclude, therefore, the Carrier did not rely upon this Rule during its handling of the dispute, and we will not consider it in our decision.
 Form 1 Award No. 28928
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-29224
 91-3-90-3-105

 The Carrier asserts the Claim is improperly before the Board as it lacks specificity as to the dates during which the alleged violations may have occurred, what duties were performed, and how much time was involved. We do not agree such specificity is required in this case. The Carrier first advised the Organization of i that the Claim was filed. At the time the initial Claim was made, the gang was still engaged in its work on the Sacramento Western Division. Accordingly, the Claim was filed o Thus, the Organization was not required to specify the dates and times of the violations. Additionally, it was the act of working on a different seniority district which the Organization was claiming to be a violation of the Rule. It did not matter to the Claim what duties were being performed, the location was the issue.

 From our review of the Rule and the circumstances involved in this case, we conclude the Carrier improperly moved the gang off its seniority district in violation of the Agreement. Rule 37 limits the seniority rights of employees to a single territory. The Carrier and the Organization did not enter into any Agreement which would authorize the gang to be moved elsewhere. Accordingly, the work performed by the Santa Clara Gang at the Fruitvale Tower was work which they had no right to perform. It was reserved to employees of the Sacramento Western Division.

 Turning to the remedy, we do not agree the Claimants are entitled to the full relief claimed. Although there are eight (3) named Claimants (five from the Oakland Signal Gang and three from the Niles Signal Gang), the record discloses the workforce from the Santa Clara Gang varied from day to day between four and eight empl we direct the Carrier to compensate the Claimants for the total man-hours worked by the Santa Clara December 20, 1988, to be divided equally among them. According to information provided by the Organization in its letter of February 18, 1990, which has not been refuted, this is a total of 1,216 hours, or 152 hours per Claimant.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy er - Executive Secretary


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