Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35179
Docket No. SG-35267
00-3-99-3-117
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Chesapeake and Ohio
( Railway Company - Pere Marquette)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (C&O-PM):
Claim on behalf of M.G. Michael, J.F. Turnwald, J.R. Wagner, G.E.
Love, C.J. Sellers, B.P. Chafin, R.G. Melvin, P.H. Franzel, J.W. Russell,
R.L. Adkins, C.R. VanderJagt, D.M. Love, D.M. Karp, K.O. Hodge and
T.P. Brady, assigned to Signal Maintainer positions the C&O Pere
Marquette District, for payment of one hour at the straight time rate for
each highway grade crossing signal installation on their respective
territories, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly the Scope Rule, when it used outside forces to install warning
signs with phone numbers at highway crossing locations on their
respective maintenance territories. Carrier's File No. 15(98-115).
General Chairman's File No. 98-38-PM. BRS File Case No. 10823-C&OPM."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934.
Form 1 Award No. 35179
Page 2 Docket No. SG-35267
00-3-99-3-117
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The claim in this case is similar to the claim in Third Division Award 35039.
The parties are the same and the arguments similar. For the reasons set forth therein
this claim is denied.
We find no basis in the present record that would support a different result in
this essentially identical case. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in Third
Division Award 35039, supra, this claim likewise is denied. See also Third Division
Awards 35040, 35041, 35042, 35043, 35044 and 35045.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December, 2000.