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