Form 1 THIRD DIVISION Award No. 30042



(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Louisville
( and Nashville Railroad Company)



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 employe 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.


Signalmen are assigned to defined seniority districts (Divisions, etc.) and hold seniority in only one district. On February 7-8, 1990, a District No. 2 Signalman was directed to operate a truck with crane hoist from a location in District No. 2, the Carrier contending that no suitable similar equipment was available in District No. 1. The District No. 2 Signalman drove the equipment to "load, haul, unload and set new signal houses on foundations at Winchester and Morning View," both District No. 1 points.

Form 1 Award No. 30042
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29839
94-3-91-3-204

The Claimant, a District No. 1 Signalman, contends the work was improperly assigned and that he could and should have been assigned to operate the truck. While the Carrier initially argued that the Claimant was not qualified to operate the equipment, the organization offered proof that he was qualified.


The issue at hand is whether the assignment constituted a Rule violation. Part of this question has been previously resolved. As stated in Third Division Award 28281:



The question therefore remains as to the brief period during which the District No. 2 Signalman "set" the signal equipment in place by use of the crane. Other work at the location was performed by District No. 1 employees, including the Claimant. Under the circumstances, the Board finds no Rule violation in the District No. 2 Signalman's brief operation of the crane outside his territory. This is particularly true since, under the Claimant's version of what should have occurred, he would have had to operate the truck from a location within District No. 2. In any event, he was working at the location when the signal equipment was put in place by the crane and could not have performed two tasks simultaneously.




      Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Catherine Loughrin - Vterim secretary to the Board


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of February 1994.