"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (B&O):

Claim on behalf of J. A. Rockwell, H. B. Simpson, D. W. Korom, J. R. Seiber, K. A. Pyles, G. P. Shaftic, B. Robinson, R. J. Oboczky, R. F. Selak, Sr. and S. T. Jones for 1230 hours to be divided equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Agreement No. 15-18-94, including Side Letter No. 2, when it allowed System Construction Gangs to repair red tagged signals on the Akron Division from October 16, 2000, through November 22, 2000, and deprived the Claimant's of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 15 (01-0049). General Chairman's File No. AK-03-O1. BRS File Case No. 11985-B&O."

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 facts of the instant matter do not appear to be in dispute. During a sixweek period, between October 16 and November 22, 2000, the Carrier used System Signal Construction Gang Nos. 7XF4 and 7XA9 to perform work under a capital improvement project on the Akron Division, covering approximately 135 miles of a former Baltimore and Ohio Railroad property of CSXT. Several signals were replaced. The steel signal masts were in very poor condition and were replaced with new signal masts. Also, obsolete signal lenses were replaced with new standard color light signals.

By letter dated January 4, 2001, the Organization submitted its claim alleging that the Carrier violated CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94 because the System Signal Construction Gang performed "work on Red Tagged Signals."

The issue in the instant case is whether the Carrier erred when it assigned System Signal Construction Gangs to replace signals under a capital improvement project on the Akron Division. It is clear that CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94 specifies that System Signal Construction Gangs were established for the purpose of performing construction work rather than maintenance work.

The Organization takes the position that the Carrier was prohibited from assigning the work in question to the System Signal Construction Gangs because said work consists of maintenance and not construction tasks. The Organization requests pay for the Claimants in the amount of 1230 hours at the Signalmen's rate of pay to be divided equally among the Claimants, for this loss of work opportunity.

Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that it acted properly. CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94 provides for the use of System Signal Construction Gangs when more than routine maintenance work is required or a major revision of an existing system is needed. In the instant situation, the system work included, among other tasks, replacement of steel signal masts with new signal masts, and

obsolete signal lenses with new standard color lights. A major revision constitutes a repair, replacement and inspection of signal components over a large territory during a confined and fixed time period. Furthermore, System Signal Construction Gangs may be used for service in conjunction with point-headquartered Signalmen. According to the Carrier, the instant project was a major revision that allowed for the use of the System Signal Construction Gangs under CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94.

The relevant language of CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94 provides as follows:

"Construction Work - That work which involves the installation of new equipment and systems and the major revision of existing systems, and not that work which involves maintaining existing equipment or systems. Replacing existing systems as a result of flood, acts of God, derailment or other emergency may also be construction work."

After a review of all evidence, the Board finds that it must agree with the Carrier. The burden of proof in this matter falls on the Organization to prove that the Carrier should have assigned a maintenance crew to the project. In a similar case, Third Division Award 33152, the Board ruled for the Carrier:

"In each of the claims involved in this case, a System Signal Construction Gang worked with a CSXT system Tie and Surfacing (T&S) Gang, replacing signal wires and rail connectors that were removed or damaged by the T&S Gang during the tie replacement project. The Claimants are all BRS-represented employees regularly assigned to Division Signal Maintenance Gang or District Signal Gang positions, who claim that the work of replacing bond strand and rail connectors (`STN or chicken head') `is and always has been 'maintenance work" and is not `construction work,' as that latter term is defined in Agreement No. 15-18-94. The Carrier denied the claims on several grounds, but primarily asserted that when such bond strand and rail connector work is done as part of a major system reconstruction and renovation, it is no violation of

Agreement No. 15-18-94, Side Letter No. 2 to the 1994 Agreement or any other contractual undertaking with the Organization for the Carrier to utilize System Signal Construction Gang employees to do that work.

The Organization's reliance upon Side Letter No. 2 to the 1994 Agreement to support all five claims is misplaced. The record establishes that none of the Claimants in the five separate claims was furloughed and, moreover, no Signalmen were furloughed on the `B&O' territory during the months of June, July and August 1995. Each Claimant worked full time on each claim date and indeed, two of the Claimants in whose territory the track renovation work was performed worked alongside the T&S and System Construction Gangs performing the disputed work.

Nor does the language of Agreement No. 15-18-94 provide contractual support for these claims. To the contrary, the following definition of construction work in that Agreement expressly recognizes a distinction between `the major revision of existing systems' and `maintaining existing equipment or systems:'

`Construction Work: That work which involves the installation of new equipment and systems and the major revision of existing systems, and not that work which involves maintaining existing equipment or systems. Replacing existing systems as a result of flood, acts of God, derailment or other emergency may also be construction work.'

So far as we can tell from this record, the Carrier utilized the System Signal Construction Gangs on the claim dates in a manner consistent with the letter and spirit of that Agreement and Side Letter No. 2. For the foregoing reasons, all of the claims must be denied."

See Also Third Division Awards 36862, 36861, 36802.

In the instant case, we believe that the Carrier utilized the System Signal Construction Gangs in a manner consistent with the intent of CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94. The work involved in this case was construction work, and therefore, it was appropriate to use a System Signal Construction Gang to perform said work. We find that the Organization has been unable to meet its burden of proof in this matter. Thus, the claim must be denied.

AWARD