Account of Carrier allowed or permitted a M&M Contractor to work 220 hours the week of December 5, 1988, week of December 12, 1988, work 246 hours. The week of December 19, 1988, work 204 hours and the week of January 2, 1989, work 176.

This was 'a violation of the Scope Rule of the current . Signalmen's Agreement, therefore, Claimants should be paid an amount equal to the hours performed by M&M. Carrier file 890126. G.C. file 89-07-M-S."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

It is undisputed that in late 1988, the Carrier sold "dead," unused communication wire to a contractor on an "as-is, where-is" basis. The wire was attached to carrier communication poles between Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Monroe, Louisiana. It was necessary for the contractor to remove the wire from the poles. While in the process of removing the dead wire, the contractor inadvertently cut an active communications line and in another incident inadvertently knocked down a live signal line. In each of those incidents, repairs to the damage were effected by Carrier employees.

The claim contends that assignment of the work in question to the contractor was a violation of the Scope Rule. However, such an argument cannot be sustained for two reasons. First, there is specific language agreed to between the Parties that allows the dismantling of wires by other than Carrier forces. The relevant language reads as follows:

1. Effective September 1, 1968, the following language shall be included in the Scope of the Agreement effective May 1, 1957, between the parties signatory hereto.

Note:

The word "construction" used in the foregoing sentence does not deprive the Carrier of the right to have other than Carrier forces perform the work required in the rehabilitation, upgrading and dismantling of existing communications pole lines, wire and appurtenances, nor does it prohibit the contracting of major new communication pole line construction, with the understanding that joint pole lines shall be considered as signal pole lines.

It is further understood that contracting the construction of communications pole lines

In addition to the specific language, it is noted that, generally, scope rules have been interpreted to allow the sale of capital property on an "as-is, where-is" basis.

As for the contractor's so-called "work" on live circuits, the Board cannot conclude that accidentally cutting or knocking down wires was meant to deprive the Carrier employees of work. Indeed, it created more work. Clearly the Carrier did not hire the contractor to knock down the wires.

In view of the foregoing, the claim must be denied.

A W A R D