Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29165
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28644
 92-3-89-3-28
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

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



On behalf of K. Hotaling, for payment of compensation of 70 hours pro-rata pay at his rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Classification Rules - INSPECTOR and SIGNALMAN, when it allowed or permitted a Signal Inspector to wire a Signal control panel in the dispatcher's office in Springfield, MA, for ten hours each on Marcn 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19, 1987. Carrier file SD-2440.

On behalf of K, Hotaling, for five hours pay at his pro-rata rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, the Scope and Classification Rules, when it allowed or permitted a Project E7.z__neer and a Signal Foreman to wire a power switch machine at CF57 on March 26, 1987." Carrier file SD-2441.

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or -arriers 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 here_^.

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


There are two claims presented for determination by this Board. On the dates in question, Claimant was assigned as a Signalman, headquartered at West Springfield, Massachusetts. Claimant's assignment was to work four days, ten hours each, from 6:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Thursday, with rest days Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
 Form 1 Award No. 29165
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28644
 92-3-89-3-28

 The claim in Case No. 1 arose when Carrier used a BRS Signal Inspector to perform work incident Dispatcher's Office in Springfield, Massachusetts on M~ _h 10-19, 1987.

 The claim in Case No. 2 arose when Carrier used a BRS Signal Foreman to perform work incident to wiring the switch machine at CP-57 on March 26, 1987. In this case, the Organization also alleges that a non-agreement Project Engineer assisted the
It is the Organization's position that the work at issue in the instant claims falls within the Scope Rule and the Classification Rule of the current Agreement, which states, in pertinent part as follows:

                          "SCOPE


          These rules shall constitute an agreement between the Consolidated Rail Corporation and its employees, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, covering rates of pay, hours of service and working conditions of employees in the signal shop or in the field, in the construction, installation, repair, inspection, testing, maintenance or removal of the following equipment and control systems, including component parts, appurtenances and power supplies (Including motor generator sets) used in connection with the systems covered by this Agreement and all other work recognized as signal work:


              Interlocking systems Block signal systems Car retarder systems Remote control of switch and signal systems Wayside train signals Train order or train start signals Cab signal, train control or train stop systems other than that portion on moving equipment Signal locking and detecting systems on movable bridges (except power wedges) Spring switches Weigh-in-motion scale systems Highway-railroad grades crossing protection systems (other than those manually operated) Dragging equipment detector systems High or wide load detector systems Slide detector systems Flood detector systems Broken flange detector systems

Form 1 award No. 29165
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-28644
 92-3-89-3-28
 Broken wheel detector systems
 Hot box detector systems
 Presence or motion detectors
 Printed circuit boards
 Switch heaters
 Electric lighted switch lamps
 Pipelines and pipeline connections used for
 mechanical operation or locking of derails,
 switches and signals
 Signal batteries
 Signal pole lines
 Impedance bonds, signal bonds and track
 connection leads
 Relay houses and relay cases
 Compressed air plants and compressed air
 distributing systems installed wholly or
 primarily for railroad interlocking,
 signaling, or retarder systems
 Carpentry, painting, welding, cutting
 foundation support, concrete work, digging
 and backfilling trenches in connection with
 installing, repairing or maintaining any
 signal apparatus or device
 Operation of all machine tools, back hoes,
 trenchers, hoisting equipment, hole diggers,
 pipe pushers or other equipment used in con
 struction, installation, maintenance or
 repair of signal systems. (In instances
 where equipment has been rented with an
 operator, an employee in the mechanic (or
 higner) class will be assigned to work with
 the operator on each piece of rental equip
 ment.)
 Removal of brush or trees that impair the
 operation of the signal systems
 Manning of trouble desk positions

        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 component railroad by employees other than those repre 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 this Agreement; and it is also understood that work not

Form 1 Award No. 29165
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-28644
 92-3-89-3-28
 included witiin this Scope which is being performed
 on the property of any former component railroad by
 employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad
 Signalmen w:il not be removed from such employees at
 the locatic7 at which such work was performed by past
 practice or agreement on the effective date of this
 Agreement.
 CLASSIFICATIONS

          INSPECTOR


        An employee assigned to direct the work of employees and to inspect the facilities, equipment or apparatus installed, maintained or repaired by employees under this agreement, and to perform the CSS 27 Tests (See Appendix ''-').


          SIGNALMAN


          An employee assigned to perform installation, construction a-.3 repair work covered by this agre


The Organizat:Dn contends that the foregoing Rules make clear that inspectors and foremen _irect the work force. There are no expressed exceptions allowing the Fore=an Foremen to perform the :ork of those employees assigned to them would give the Carrier latitude of wor·. assignment not sanctioned by the Rules or intended by the parties.

 Carrier maintains that the Rules relied upon by the Organization are not job descriptions but, rather, were established to effectuate and protect employees' rates of pa, promotions and seniority rights provided for in the Agreement. Carrier asserts that the Scope and Classification Rules are not exclusive grants of wor< to each classification, a proposition which has been recognized in numerous Awards. Moreover, as to the Project Engineer in Case f/2, the Carrier contends that he worked in a purely instructional manner and therefore there is no e71dence that he even arguably performed work within the Scope of the employee's Agreement. Finally, Carrier submits that Claimant was on duty and under pay o1 the claim dates in question and, in the event of a finding that the Agreement was violated, no monetary Award should be issued.

 After careful :onsideration of the. record in its entirety and the precedent Awards cited :y both parties, we are convinced that the instant claims lack Rule support and therefore must be denied. Most persuasive, perhaps, is the fact t`at the cases cited by the Organization are so demonstrably distinguishable fr Form 1 Award No. 29165
 Page 5 Docket No. SG-28644
 92-3-89-3-28

 7504, for example, the Board sustained a claim in which an Assistant General Foreman installed office heating and air-conditioning controls, work normally assigned to the electrician craft. In concluding that the Assistant Foremen improperly performed craft work, the Board relied upon an express provision of the Agreement which stated:

          "None but mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as such shall do mechanics' work as per the special rules of each craft except foremen at point where no mechanics are employed."


Other much older Awards relied upon by the Organization address the issue of intercraft disputes, a matter which we view as inapposite here. (See Third Division Award 10026.)

 It is well-established that the Scope and Classification Rules relied upon by the Organization do not confer reservation of work to unit employees. See Third Division Awards 27756; 25546; 12668; 21753; and 22144. In the absence of a specific contractual prohibition or limitation to the contrary, and lacking any evidence of past practice, it must be concluded that the work performed by the Foreman and Inspector did not violate the Agreement.

 Finally, as to the work performed by the Project Engineer, we note that the Organization never rebutted Carrier's statement that he was acting in a purely instructional manner. Given that state of the record, that portion of the claim must also be denied.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:

      Nancy J. -a#- 01

                  Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of April 1992.