The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Nancy F. Eischen when award was rendered.


                      (Brotherhood 4f Railroad Signalmen

        R TIES TO DISPUTE:

        (CSX Transortation; Inc. (former Seaboard Coast Line

        ( Railroad Company)


    STATEMENT OF CLAI


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


          Claim on behalf of . H. Phillips, for one hour at the time and onehlf rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen S Agreement particularly the Scope Rule, when it allowed an outside contractor to remove signal foundation that was to a re-used at iami Plantation on October 7, 2001, and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File o. 02-0044. General Chairman's File No: SCL-03-04-02A. B RS File Case o. 12422-SCL."


    FINDINGS:


The Third Division of the Adjustment oar, upon the whole recor and all t . . . evidence, finds that:

    The carrier or carriers an the employee or employees involved in this dispute

    are respectively carrier and employee in the ein of the Railway Labor AC4

    approved June 21,1934.


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

Form 1 Award o. 37239
 Paga Docket o. 37700
 04-3-03-3-3
 Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
 The Claimant in this case is R. H. Phillips, Who, at the time this dispute arose,
 was assigned to the position of Signalmen. A review of the record demonstrates that
 on October 7, 2001, the Claimant's signal force was ice assigned the task of
 removing a nonfunctional signal mast, but twice failed to accomplish same:
 p
 ecifcally, due to soft ground, the Claimant's crew was unable to move its boo truck next to the signal mast to remove it from its foundation. Therefore, the Carrier asked a contractor, who was already working at the location with a track hoe, to lay the signal out of the way until CST personnel could get their boom truck into the location. 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 his November 21, 2001 claim the Local Chairman asserted that the Carrier violated the Scope Rule on Sunday, October 7, 2001 when a contractor removed signal and its foundation at Miami Plantation on the F BU.

 The Carrier denied the Organization's arch 4, 2002 appeal, premised, i pertinent art, upon the following:

      " ur review of the facts in this case reveals that on October 7, 2001

      the Carrier directed the Claimant's signal construction team t

      remove a dead signal from its location. However, the location as

      not accessible to tea's boom truck because f tight clearances and

      t probabili of damaging r immobilizing boom truck.

      Therefore, the Carrier authorize track hoe operator, who s

      orking in the vicinity, to remove the dismantled signal mast from

      its foundation. This task took less than 15 minutes for the operator

      to complete., Moreover, the operator performed n t

      signal itself. He merely lifted the mast fro the signal foundation

      and set it on the ground.


      Given, these circumstances, Carrier fails to see ere it would v violate the agreement. Indeed, the Claimant himself as resent at e site during the brief period f time in Which te track hoe

Form 1 Award o. 37239
 Paga Docket : SG-37700
 04-3-0 -3-
 operator removed the mast and then placed. it on the ground. Tasks
 of this nature must be considered de inius work at best.
 Furthermore, the Organization's request for punitive damages for
 work performed during normal business hours is clearly misplaced.
 In light of the safety issues in'this case and the fact that the work
 was of ad extremely short duration; the Carrier's decision to allow
 the track hoe operator to remove the signal from its foundation did
 not violate the Agreement."
 This claim is indistinguishable in any material aspect from the companion
 claim in Third Division Award 37238, also before the Board, with the only
 difference being the named Claimant. For reasons set forth more fully in Award
 37238, this claim likewise is denied:

                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
 that an Awrfavorable to te Claimants) not be e.

                        TI IONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        Order Tiivisi n


ate at i, Illinois, this 7th ft