For 1
TI L
 T I

 Award . 760
 Docket o. 7 9
 0 -3-0 _ -1

 The Third Division consiste ®f the regular embers and in addition Referee Robert . Richter when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT CL
" i oalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad ignl en on the Union Pacific (UP).

 Claim on behalf of . . Hudson, for seen hours and thir minutes
 t his time and one-half rate of y, account Carrier violate the
 current Signal en's Agreement, particularly y Rule 1, when it
 uire signal maintainer t perform construction or that
 required n appreciable amount of is time and deprived t

 Claimant f the opportune terfor this work on September and 5, 2001, t 1 .on the lint n Subdivision in State

 Center, Iowa. Carrier's File .2 7 . General Chairman's File
      -23 . BRS File .11-U ."


FINDINGS,:
e ce, fins tat:

 The Third t Adjustment Board, e whole recor all the

    Tcarrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute

e respectively carrier an employee in the e meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
 approved June 21,1 .

 This, Division of involved

 ° snt jurisdiction

 dispute
 For 1 and . 760
 Page Docket .
 0-3_0_®71

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


t the tine this dispute arose the Claimant was assigned s Signalman on Construction a. 0 .

      n Septemberand , 2001 the Carrier use one of its s Signal Maintainers to

remove: and install switch, underground cable and track wires on Track 1 house
 track switch at State Center, I.

 n September 1 , of t Organization flied this claim. asserts tat h
 Carrier violated paragraph ole 1 t used a Signal Maintainer to perform
 work in question. The Rule reads s follows:
 " le 1- Seniority Class One

          Signal Maintainer: n empassigned loyee to perform work

          generally recognize as signal work o assigned district.

          Signal l maintainers with an assigned district will not be

          required to perform construction r requiring n

          appreciable amount of their tie."


e Organization's r s argument is that the Claimant should have been used to
 the o.

 The Carrier responds stating tat tin i ule ) restricts the work that can be assigned to a Signal Maintainer: Rule 1 (k) may prohibit the Carrier fro assignin construction k n an excessive basis, t it does not ban such assignment.

 The parties reached a agreement limits the amount of cnstti
 r that requires n "appreciable t their ti e." ever, the term
 "appreciable ie" it defined.
 For 1 a

 Award No. 37
 of No. SG-37593
 0--0®®1

      The Board Lcks a authority to caa the Agreement.It is the

r aitio'bureto prove that the existing Agreement as been n violated. It
 has not proves that Rule 1(k) was violate

 Ii denied.

 E

 This Board, after consideration of the d

 that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.

 l

 ed above, hereby' orders

 TI L T
 Order of Third iisio

 to a Chicago, Illinois, is 22nd day of September