The Carrier's claim that Claimant has no contractual right to work in Columbus is without basis. He holds seniority on the entire Carrier's system. Also, it is none of the Carrier's business who the Organization names as a Claimant as the Carrier is only required to pay once for a violation of an Agreement. This principle has been established by this Division in prior Awards. See Third Division Award 5195.

It is indisputable that the Carrier did remove work from the Signalmen's Agreement and assigned this work to employes not covered by that Agreement. Referee Wenke, in Third Division Award 6214 stated that Carrier may not let out to others the performance of work contained within the Scope of its collective agreement with its employes.

The Carrier beyond question violated the Signalmen's Agreement and should be required to pay for the violation. The Brotherhood maintains that the Carrier, in this case, has demonstrated an utter disregard for a negotiated Agreement to which it is a party, and for the rights of its employes who work under the Signalmen's Agreement.

Therefore, we ask the Board to sustain our position in this dispute in its entirety in order that the integrity of the Agreement will be preserved.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Signal Maintainer J. J. Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer P. F. Garlington were instructed by Supervisor of Communications and Signals L. J. Butler to perform the work in question, that is, to replace one of the poles supporting a street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and this Carrier's tracks in the City of Columbus, Georgia. They were told that, if they wished to do so, they could avail themselves of the use of a company truck, equipped with a hoist and boom, and regularly assigned to the Comunications Section, to raise and set the new pole. Messrs. Andrews and Garlington elected to use the truck inasmuch as that was by far the easiest way to handle the job.

Signal Maintainer Andrews was initially instructed by Supervisor Butler to operate the mechanism installed on the company truck for the purpose of handling poles; however, due to Mr. Andrews lack of confidence in himself, Supervisor Butler subsequently gave him the liberty to request an employe of the Communications Section, experienced in such work, to operate it for him, but told Mr. Andrews that if he did not personnally operate the mechanism, that he should be immediately present while the mechanism was being operated on the truck in order to avoid any claim being filed by General Chairman J. R. Estes, Jr., of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the pretext that any part of the work was performed by forces other than signal employes. The fact is that General Chairman Estes has been flooding the Carrier with claims about any and everything imagineable, and as in this case, we have leaned over backward to avoid claims.

Signal Maintainer Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington dug the necessary hole for the pole to be set in.

Signal Maintainer Andrews exercised the liberty given him and requested an employe of the Communications Section to operate the aforementioned mechanism to raise and set the pole, and the Communications employe complied with Mr. Andrews' request, but, during the operation, Signal Maintainer Andrews did stand by immediately adjacent to the employe operating the

mechanism during the raising and setting of the pole. Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington guided the butt end of the new pole into the hole, and he and Signal Maintainer Andrews backfilled the hole around the pole with earth; however, an employe of the Communications Section did, Carrier later learned, assist in tamping the fresh earth, in spite of the fact that Mr. Andrews had clear instructions to the effect that he was to see that the entire work was performed in such a manner as to obviate any excuse for a claim. Nevertheless, the two signal employes requested or permitted a communications employe to assist in the tamping of earth around the pole. Of course, Messrs. Andrews and Garlington have received appropriate handling from their Supervisor on this point.

It is a further fact that the Claimant Mr. R. L. Teece, was on duty and under pay on his territory at the time this work was performed in Columbus, Georgia. Mr. Teece has no contract rights to work in Columbus, Georgia, for the reason that is not his assigned territory. Had he performed work in Columbus the Carrier would no doubt have faced a claim alleging a violation of the Agreement due to Mr. Teece performing work not within his territory. The claim for Mr. Teece is purely that of a penalty. There is no rule in the Agreement in evidence that provides for such penalty payment demanded. Exception is, therefore, taken by the Carrier, as it was on the property, to Mr. R. L. Teece being an improper claimant and, further, that by no stretch of the imagination could he be entitled to any monetary payment whatsoever.

A claim was filed by General Chairman J. R. Estes, Jr., of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, reproduced below:

"Claim (a). That the Carrier violated the agreement of July 1, 1950 when on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 1961., two employes of the communications department (Mr. Moss and Mr. Dacus) were instructed or permitted to work one and one half hours each putting up a traffic signal pole at tenth Ave, Columbus, Ga.

"Claim (b). That Mr. R. L. Teece, signal maintainer at Phenix City, Ala., be paid for three hours at his overtime rate of pay on account of this violation.

"This is farming out the work covered by the Scope Rule of the agreement and I am unable to see any Rule in the agreement whereby this work could be done by this craft and not violate the agreement."

Mr. W. M. Whitehurst, Superintendent Communications and Signals, acknowledged receipt by letter dated February 28, 1961, and through an exchange of correspondence with General Chairman Estes, a conference was held on March 10, 1961. Mr. Whitehurst confirmed his decision to Mr. Estes by letter dated March 24, 1961, reading as follows:

"Yours of February 6, 1961, File Docket No. 87, submitting the following claims, and our conference in this connection at this office beginning at 10:30 A. M., March 10, 1961:

'Claim (a). That the Carrier violated the agreement of July 1, 1950 when on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 1961, two employes of the communications department (Mr. Moss and Mr. Dacus) were instructed or permitted to work one and one half hours each putting up a traffic signal pole at tenth Ave, Columbus, Ga.

'Claim (b). That Mr. R. L. Teece, signal maintainer at Phenix City, Ala., be paid for three hours at his overtime rate of pay on account of this violation.

"This is farming out the work covered by the Scope Rule of the agreement and I am unable to see any Rule in the agreement whereby this work could be done by this craft and not violate the agreement.'

"A creosoted pine line pole was required by signal maintenance forces to replace one of the existing poles used to support a street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and the railway's tracks at the east end of Columbus, Georgia Yard.

"Mr. L. J. Butler, Supervisor of Communications and Signals, arranged for two men in the Communications Section to load a pole from the Company's pole stock at Columbus, on a pole trailer, and haul the pole to the site of the work. Mr. J. J. Andrews, Signal Maintainer on whose territory the pole was to be replaced, along with Mr. P. F. Garlington, Traveling Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Columbus, was instructed to make replacement of the signal pole, and these men were told that they could have the service of the Communications truck which is equipped with rigging for raising poles. Supv. Butler instructed Signal Maintainer Andrews to operate the truck rigging in raising the pole; however, if he desired, he would be at liberty to request one of the communication men to actually manipulate the equipment on this truck for raising the pole, but if such was done, then Mr. Andrews should stand by this communications employe and at least hold his hand on the communications employe's shoulder while the manipulation was taking place, for Mr. Andrews must, without question, handle this work in such a manner that there could be no possibility of any claims being entered under the pretext that employes other than signal forces were performing signal work.

"I am advised that the two signal maintainers dug the hole for this pole and that Mr. Andrews did arrange for one of the communications employes to operate the pole raising rig on the truck, but that Mr. Andrews stood by this communications employe as a 'stand by' while Mr. Garlington guided the butt of the pole into the hole, and that signal forces filled the hole around the pole with soil and one of the communications employes did perform some of the tamping of the soil in his hole around the pole even in spite of the fact that Signal Maintainer Andrews had been instructed that signal forces were to perform all of the work in this connection in such a manner as to preclude any possible claims.

"In our conference on March 10, 1961 in this connection, you stated that your information is that communications employes were instructed to assist signal forces in the work of settling this pole, and I replied that such was simply not the case, for communications employes were instructed to deliver the pole to the site of the work, and signal forces were instructed to make the installation. You indicated that it was your position that any and all of the work involved was signal work, including delivering the pole to the site of the work, and my reply was that the Railway could arrange to deliver this material by any means it saw fit, even to the extent of having it delivered by taxicab.

"You further stated that if these communications employes were allowed to do any of this work, then the Agreement was violated, and penalties should be paid. My reply was that if you took this position about this situation, then I should prefer formal charges against Signal Maintainer Andrews for failure to comply with instructions issued him by his Supervisor and arrange for formal investigation, with the view of determining the facts and taking whatever action might have been indicated as results of his performance under these circumstances, for the Management is not in position, nor is it required to stand over its employes to police their every movement. If employes can not, or will not, perform their duties as instructed, then it will be necessary to make arrangements to obtain employes who will conduct themselves and their work in a satisfactory manner.

"I stated to you at the conclusion of our conference that I could see no violation of the Agreement under the circumstances, and that it was my position that your claims in this connection are untenable, and advised you at that time that I declined your claims in this connection.

"This is to confirm our conference and my declination of your claims under File Docket No. 87, dated February 6, 1961."

By letter dated March 25, 1961, General Chairman Estes appealed the claim to the next higher officer, Mr. J. B. McKerley, Chief Engineer of Carrier. Mr. Estes sent a copy of that letter to Mr. Whitehurst, and stated on Mr. Whitehurst's copy that his decision was not acceptable.

Chief Engineer McKerley acknowledged receipt on April 3, 1961, as follows:

"Referring to your letter of March 25, 1961, marked 'File Docket No. 87', appealing to me the decision of Mr. W. M. Whitehurst, Superintendent of Communications and Signals, on the following claim:

'Claim (a). That the Carrier violated the Agreement of July 1, 1950, when on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 1961, two employes of the Communications Department (Mr. Moss and Mr. Dacus) were instructed or permitted to work one and onehalf hours each putting up or setting a traffic signal pole at Tenth Ave., Columbus, Ga.

'Claim (b). That Mr. R. L. Teece, Signal Maintainer at Phenix City, Ala., be paid for three hours at his overtime rate of pay on account of this violation.'

"While you were in my office on March 29, 1961, to discuss another matter, you requested that a conference between you and me on the subject claim be deferred until such time as we shall meet to confer on two subsequent and separate claims which you said were in the course of processing, and I granted your request.

"Please confirm in writing our agreement that discussion of the subject claim will be deferred as set forth in the preceding paragraph.”

On April 10, 1961, File docket No. 87, General Chairman Estes wrote Chief Engineer McKerley as follows:

"I have your letter of April 3, 1961 in regards to this claim.

"I appreciate your deferring discussion on this claim until a

later date. Thanks."

By mutual agreement through correspondence, a conference was held in the office of Chief Engineer McKerley with General Chairman Estes on May 26, 1961, and Mr. McKerley confirmed his decision by letter dated May 30, 1961, reading as follows:

"In reference to the claim submitted by you on behalf of Mr. R. L. Teece, Signal Maintainer, your File Docket No. 87, reading as follows:

'Claim (a). That the Carrier violated the Agreement of July 1, 1950, when on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 1961, two employes of the Communications Department (Mr. Moss and Mr. Dacus) were instructed or permitted to work one and onehalf hours each putting up or setting a traffic signal pole at Tenth Ave., Columbus, Ga.

'Claim (b). That Mr. R. L. Teece, Signal Maintainer at Phenix City, Ala., be paid for three hours at his overtime rate of pay on account of this violation.'

"I wish to hereby confirm that you and I discussed the abovestated claim, in this office, on May 26, 1961.

"Signal Maintainer J. J. Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer P. F. Garlington were instructed by Supervisor of Communications and Signals L. J. Butler to perform the work in question, that is, to replace one of the poles supporting a street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and this Company's tracks in the City of Columbus, Ga. They were told that, if they wished to do so, they could avail themselves of the use of a truck, equipped with a hoist and boom, and regularly assigned to the Communication Section, to raise and set the new pole.

"Signal Maintainer Andrews was initially instructed by Supervisor Butler to operate the mechanism installed on the truck for the purpose of handling poles; however, Supervisor Butler subsequently gave him the liberty, in the event he preferred not to operate the mechanism, to request an employe of the Communication Section to operate it for him, but told him in such case, to stand by, and, during the course of the pole's being raised and set, hold his hand on the shoulder of the employe of the Communication Section, because it was the desire of this Company that this work be done in such a manner as to preclude the filing of a claim under the pretext that any part of the work was done by forces other than signal forces.

"Signal Maintainer Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington dug the necessary hole.

"Signal Maintainer Andrews exercised the liberty given him to request an employe of the Communication Section to operate the aforementioned mechanism, and such an employe complied with his