"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT):

Claim on behalf of G. C. Neely, for two hours and 40 minutes at the time and one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, when it allowed train crew employees to remove snow and ice from the power operated switch point and move the switch points back and forth to clear the trouble reported which was the switch would not reverse. The violation occurred on January 6, 2002, at the west end of Meadow Creek on the Hinton District of the former C&O Railway and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 15-02-0094. General Chairman's File No. 02-17-CD. BRS File Case No. 12631-C&O(CD)."

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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

At all relevant times herein the Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Signal Maintainer responsible for the maintenance of switches at Meadow Creek on the Hinton District of the Carrier. On January 6, 2002 the Carrier allowed a member of a train crew represented by the UTU to remove snow and ice from switches that did not respond to the Train Dispatcher's controls. The record reflects that the train crew member was already on the site and available to complete the work.

The Organization contends that when removing snow and ice or other foreign matter from switches is done for the purpose of ensuring the proper operation of signals, that work accrues to employees represented by the Organization. Under circumstances different from that of the instant case, we might find ourselves in agreement with the Organization. However, the record clearly reflects that the work in question in this case did not become necessary because snow and ice on the switches caused a malfunction, but rather only because the train crew member was already at the site and available to perform the work in question. Thus, we believe that this case can be distinguished from that where a power failure had occurred and find that the claim is without merit.

AWARD