"CORRECTED"
For 1 TI



                                        05-3-02-3-707


The Third Division consiste of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert . Richter' hen award rener.

 (Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen PARTIES T DISPUTE:
                  (Union Pacific Railroad


TA, F.
                  .


      "Claim ®n behalf f of, the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

      Railroad Signalmen o the Union Pacific


      lain on if . . c, J. . Peterson, . . Hunt, D. D.

      au, . L. Johnson, . J. Jett, K. J. ej s L. . i , for

      238 hours c t their respective time one-half rtes s of pay,,

      ccount Carrier current- Signalmen's Agreement,


      particularly ulle , e it purchased i sinstalled a pre-assembled car retarder at the North Platte Hump

      Yard on August 8, 2001, and deprived the Claimants of the

      opportunity t perform this work. Carrier's Fl . 1 .

      General Chairman's File - . BRS File Case No. 12272-


      The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the e, s tat:


    The carrier or carriers and the employee or. employees involved in this dispute

    respectively carrier l t i

as approved June 21, 1934.1
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No.. 37606 t No. SG-37580

        s


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

      Parties t i it given tit


At the time of this dispute the Claimants held various positions at the Hump Yard at North Platte, Nebraska.

 t , i i
 i installed Carrier's 1

      On September 24, 2001 the Organization instituted this

      1 ii t

      t.


        Carrier t.

new and fully assembled car retarder. In support of its position the Carrier cited
 it Division i

      "The Organization's claim rests primarily on the Scope Rule. It

      sserts s that construction of car retarders falls within the work rule.

        Organization t i e

        disputed work sic car retarders r installed Carrier's

      r '

                    .


        April , i received ecti r the uc i, Tennessee.


        e evidence r s well as submissions this


      learl establishes cil ler Company,, The disputed work was completed vrior to

      the time tat Carrier acquired possession i t is,

      there is nothing to indicate that this did not constitute a purchase.


      This is not the situation where the unassembled equipment was on the property and then went out for assembling. If that was the case,


11 1

 on the
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 37606
 Docket No. SG-37580
 05-3-02-3-707

 t i 1 loyes under the Scope Rule would attach. Here
 t rights t attached. , i
 iris t, i t circumstances s ,
 i ewed as t contracting t i t bargaining i

 i

 has consistently held that Carrier may purchase assembled equipment without violating the example Awards 5044, 21824. rill deny the claim."

 similar.

 proving t violated.

 1 im denied.

 See for r

 AWARD
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Chicago, Illinois, i