(8) Under the circumstances prevailing in the instant dispute, Shop Crafts' Rule 55, which the employes have cited in support of their claim, could not possibly have application.

(9) Finally, the work of repairing the damage to the locomotive, which, incidentally, was discovered only after the locomotive was rerailed, and consisted of (repairing and replacing the gear case cover and repairing the brake rigging) was performed by employes of the machinists' craft, January 16, 1955, the day following the derailment.

The carrier respectfully reasserts that the employes' claim in the instant dispute is entirely without support under the agreement rules and should be denied for the reasons previously advanced herein.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant is a machinist employed at the roundhouse at Chanute, Kansas. At the time the present dispute arose, he was next out of the Road Trip Board at that point.

On January 15, 1955, locomotive 1535, a diesel locomotive assigned to switching service at Bartlesville, Oklahoma, was derailed at about 7 :25 P. M. The locomotive engineer and Station Agent made an inspection of the derailed locomotive. The agent reported to the Mechanical Department at Chanute that the front trucks on the locomotive were derailed and that no visible damage to the locomotive existed. Carrier sent an Electrician and two Carmen to assist in rerailing the engine. The Electrician was needed to cut out the traction motors on the derailed trucks. The Carmen and the Engine Watchman, the only Mechanical Department employe at Bartlesville, rerailed the engine. After the rerailing was completed it was discovered that the gear case cover had been punctured and that there was some damage to the brake rigging. The engine watchman with some assistance from the others removed the damaged gear case cover. It was taken to Chanute by truck and repaired. Claimant returned with the repaired gear case cover, replaced it and repaired the brake rigging. The claim here made is that claimant should have been sent to Bartlesville in the first instance to perform the work of removing the gear case cover and such other machinist's work that vas then to be performed.

The employes cite the following rules in support of their position:

"Rule 55: In case of wrecks where engines are disabled, machinist and helper, if necessary, shall accompany the wrecker. They will work under the direction of the Wreck Foreman."

"Rule 55, Memorandum No. 1. When a locomotive is disabled in addition to derailment, and it is desired to move the locomotive in under its own power, a Machinist and Helper will be sent with the wrecker to place the locomotive in condition to operate."

We point out that the foregoing rules have application where engines are derailed and disabled. The evidence in possession of the Carrier at Chanute was that the front trucks were derailed and that there was no visible damage to engine. The Carrier did not even dispatch a wrecker to

the scene of the derailment. The damage to the gear case cover and the brake rigging was not discovered until the rerailing was completed. The evidence is very conflicting as to whether the damage was the result of the derailment or whether it occurred during the rerailing. The record does not establish facts from which the Carrier could reasonably know that a machinist should have been sent to the scene of the derailment in the first instance. The controlling rules are set forth in Awards 1456 and 1864. A denial award is required.

AWARD