Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29362
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29852
 92-3-91-3-231
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.

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

Claim on behalf of Inspector D. A. Dunkle, 868273, assigned hours from 0700 to 1530 Monday through Friday.

 (a) Carrier violated the current agreement between Conrail and the BRS, particularly CLASSIFICATIONS (INSPECTOR) and all other relevant agreement rules, when the Carrier failed to call an Inspector or Foreman when their duties were required to be performed.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Mr. Dunkle twelve (12.0) hours at one and one-half times his normal rate of $16.37 per hour. Payment is for loss of overtime work opportunity." Carrier file SG-232. BRS Case No. 8289.CR.

 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 Claimant is an Inspector in the pertinent area. In January of 1990, there was a derailment and, at about the same time, 24L signal was vandalized. Although Signal Maintainers were called to work, the Organization contends that none of them held an Inspector's position, and the situation required either an Inspector or a Foreman.
 Form 1 Award No. 29362
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29852
 92-2-91-3-231
 The Claim contends that the "Classification Rule-Inspector" was
 violated. That Rule defines the Inspector as one who is assigned to direct
 the work of employees and to inspect the facilities, equipment or apparatus
 installed, maintained or repaired by employees under the Agreement, and to
 perform C&S Tests. Appendix F states that certain designated tests may be
 performed as required by qualified employees.

 Carrier's denial was premised upon the assertion that the presence of an Inspector was not warranted under the circumstances.

 We find nothing of record to suggest that the supervisory employees who were present took any action which violated the Agreement. That conclusion and the permissive (r us to deny the claim.






Attest: J~i :49i5w~. ~
          cy J. la-Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of August 1992.