Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29271
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29362
 92-3-90-3-273
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

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

Claim on behalf of V. P. Martell, for payment of 3 hours pay at his punitive rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, partic 8, when it permitted or allowed an inspector to shunt track, remove wires and pick stick relays from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m., on April 20, 1989." Carrier file SG-96.

 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.

The record reveals that on April 20, 1989, a Signal Inspector performed certain tasks from 6:30 speed checks. As best we can ascertain from the record developed on the property, the Claimant, who is a Signal Maintainer, contends that he should have been called for the work pursuant to the "Call Rule," Appendix "P" of the Agreement. The record does not disclose whether, in fact, the Carrier made a call. Accordingly, the "Call Rule" is not applicable.

 With respect to question of whether the claimed work is exclusively reserved to the Claimant, we note that the Carrier, in its letter of October 16, 1989, relied upon Third Division Award 25546 to deny the claim on the basis that this is a similar dispute involving the same parties under the same Scope Rule.
 Form 1 Award No. 29271
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29362
 92-3-90-3-273
 We agree with the Carrier and once again adhere to the principle of
 adhering to the decision reached by previous Awards. Moreover, we note that,
 while the Organization on the property argued that a past practice existed,
 which the Carrier denied, it did not provide any documentation to support its
 assertion on the property.






Attest: ~Z .01- e!:~
      .Nancy er - Executive ecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of June 1992.