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

Claim on behalf of . H. Phillips, for 24 hours straight time and four hours time and one-half, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 3, when it used a Signal Foreman to take the place of the Claimant by performing the work of pulling out cable, placing cable in ditch lines, installing cable ditch line marker tape and the setting of a signal house, , at N.E. Miami Plantation, on October 1, 2, . and October 5, 2001, and derived Claimant of the opportune to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 02-0042. General Chairman's-File o. SCL-03--. S File Case No. 12424-SCL."

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

During the week of October 1, 2001, the Claimant was assigned to System Signal Force 7X10. Also assigned to this force were Lead Signalman J. G. Howell and three additional signal employees, L. E4 Norris, P® E: Faith and M® P. Derisi. Of note, and pertinent to this dispute, Foreman J. Deal was absent from his assignment with Signal Force 7 10, and Lead Signalman Howell stepped up to be the Acting Foreman. Upon assuming those duties, Lead Signalman Howell was compensated at the higher rate of pay.

In a letter dated November 21, 2002, the Organization submitted a claim on behalf of the Claimant in which it maintained that the Carrier violated Rule

SIGNAL FOREMAN of the Agreement, account the Carrier had an "insufficient number" of employees to perform' the necessary tasks during the aforementioned week: Specifcally, the Local Chairman alleged that the acting non-working Foreman (Howell) performed the signal work of pulling out cable, placing cable and installin

cable ditch line marker tape in ditch lines, as well as installing a signal house: According to the Local Chairman, these "actions of this non-working foreman took the place of another employee in violation of the Agreement," and as such, a contended that the Claimant should be compensated requested.

The claim was denied y letter dated January 1 , 2002, wherein the anger of Signal Operations stated:

"The carrier never instructed r. Howell, the acting foreman, t perfor any signal duties pertaining to te signal cable installation t unknown location. Further investigation reveals that r. Howell elected on is own trticiate with the installation the signal cable."

The Carrier further stated that the clan was "excessive an vague."

In its arch , 2002 1, the Organization asserted that the Carrier haa

the non-working Foreman to supplement the forces. Specifically, the Organization maintained:

" r. Howell was clearly performing signal work, and taking the place

of another employee. Whether r. Howell was `instructed', `elected',

or `supported' in this work is of no consequence.. He did perform the

work, and it is a clear violation of Agreement t Rule 3.11

In its final denial of the appeal, the Carrier reiterated its earlier stance, maintaining that Rule 3 specifies that a Foreman may perform work over which he has supervision on a "random basis." The issue was not resolved on the property, and is now before the Board for adjudication.

Rule 3 provides that a Foreman may perform the necessary work to instruct those under his supervision, but is not "required" to regularly perform any work over which he has supervision. Under the circumstances, there is no record evidence which suggests that the disputed work was performed y Acting Foreman Howell with the authority, instruction, or knowledge of any CST official, or at the Carrier's direction. In the absence of such evidence, the Organization failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the Carrier violated any portion of the Agreement, specifically Rule 3. Therefore, the claim must a denied.

AWARD