The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi
tion Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 101, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT A. F. of L. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The carrier maintains at St. Cloud, Minnesota in the car department a force of carmen on the car repair track and the train yard. A wrecking derrick is also maintained.
The hereinbefore named carmen and derrick engineer, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are regularly employed at St. Cloud, Minnesota, and were available to perform this wrecking service on June 6, 1955.
On June 6, 1955, Great Northern Idler Car No. X2566 was derailed in the yard limits of St. Cloud Car Shops, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Idler Car No. X2566 was being used in connection with Crane No. X1855 which is assigned to the Stores Department. Crane No. X1855 was being operated with Stores Department employes. Stores Department employes were used to rerail Idler Car No. X2566 and in so doing they used Crane No. X1855 to lift the trucks of Idler Car No. X2566 back upon the rail.
This dispute has been handled with all carrier officials designated to handle such disputes up to and including the highest designated officer of the carrier, all of whom have declined to make satisfactory settlement.
The agreement effective September 1, 1949 as subsequently amended, is controlling.
In the present case, no members of any wrecking crew were "necessary." There is nothing in Rule 88, nor in any other rule, which compels the use of carmen in situations where carmen are not necessary.
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.
Award 1760 (Carter) Great Northern-Carmen is cited by both parties as being a precedent for our consideration herein. In that case a hostler had derailed an engine in such fashion that additional help was required and was supplied by mechanics and helper who were used to rerail it. Carmen were not called and subsequently were allowed pay for a violation of Rule 88.
The present case is parallel in all factual respects, save one. Here the "Stores Department employes were used to rerail Idler car . . and in so doing used (Stores Department) crane" which had been in service with the Idler car. It is thus evident that the Stores Department employes did not need additional help, which would have required calling carmen.