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

Claim on behalf of R. L: Cooper, for one hour at the time and one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen s Agreement particularly the Scope Rule, when it allowed an outsie contractor to remove a signal and a signal foundation on October 7, 2001; and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity t® perform this work, Carrier's File o. 02-0039. General Chairman's File No: SCL0-1-02.A® BRS File Case No. 1417-SCL."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involve

Parties to said dispute ere given unticf hearing thereon.

On October 7, 2001 the Carrier directed the Claimant's signal construction team to remove a dead signal from its location. Following a failed second attempt by the signal force crew to remove same, the Carrier authorized a Track Hoe Operator, who was working in the vicinity, to remove the dismantled signal mast from its foundation.

In his initial claim, submitted on December 7, 2001 the Claimant asserted the following:

"Crew of men outside contractor removed old signal and foundation from right away. Due to lack of Signalmen to perform task as quickly as requested by project engineer of maintenance."

"Our review of the facts in this case reveals that on October 7, 2001 the Carrier directed the Claimant's signal construction team to remove a dead signal from its location. However, the location was not accessible to team's boom truck because of tight clearances and the probability o damaging or immobilizing the boom truck. Therefore, the Carrier authorized a track hoe operator, who was working in the vicinity, to remove the dismantled signal mast from its foundation. This task took less than 1intes for the operator to complete. Moreover, the operator performed no work on the signal itself. He merely lifted the mast from the signal foundation and set it on the ground.

Given, these circumstances, the Carrier fails to see where it would have violated the agreement. Indeed, the Claimant himself was present t the site during the brief period of time in which the track hoe operator removed the mast and then place it on the round. Tasks of this nature must a considere de mini us work t best. Furthermore, the Organization's request for punitive damages for work performed during normal business ours is clearly misplaced. In light of the safety issues in this case and the fact that the work was f an extremely sort duration, the Carrier's decision to allo t track hoe operator t

remove si nl fro its foundation id not violate the Agreement."

review of the record demonstrates that the Claimant's signal construction crew was given two opportunities to remove a nonfunctional signal mast but was unable to accomplish same. Specifically, the crew truck became stuck in the soft ground several feet from the desired location: The contractor, who was already working at the location with a track hoe, laid the signal out of the way until the Claimant's crew could et its boom truck into position. Thereafter, the foundation was bulldozed over, because it was no longer needed, and Signalmen assisted in the mast removal by disconnecting the signal cable and removing the bolts that held the mast to the stand,,

In light of the Carrier crew's inability to lay the signal out of the way, the Carrier had no alternative but to use the contractor to accomplish the necessary task. There is no dispute that the contractor vas already working at the site and that the task in dispute took less than 15 minutes to complete. Furthermore, o S-represented employees were adversely affected as a result of the contractor's de mini mus contribution to the project. Therefore, the claim must be denied:

AWARD