r orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD A D_PJS7",E.NT BOARD Award ho. 6378
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6228
 2-C&0-MA-' 72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when. award was rendered.
 ( System Federation ho. 41, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F'. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Qis2ute: ( (Machinists)
 (
 ( The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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.

Claimant worked the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift on five consecutive ciaArs Thursday through Monday. Via first and second rest days were Tuesday an:] ~l~--dne sday. There is no dispute in tail case that the extra work was performed or, the first and also on the second lest 'ay. The Organization contends that the December 4, 1969 Wage Settlement made effective by Public Law 91.-226, dated April 9, 1970 provides for double the basic straight time rate for the service performed on tile second rest day.

 Carrier rejected the claim on the ground that claimant worked at a different location than the place assigned on two of his regular work days; also that he performed work on his rest days at a place where no one is regularly assigned.

Form 1 Award No. 637$ i
 Pa- e 2 Docket No. 6228
 2-C&O-MA-'72

 Therefore, the. Carrier concDades, claimanx, does riot come within the Agreement re-
 ferrc6 to by the Organization which requires that service be performed, "by a ~,
 regularly assigned--employs--.", (see Map-toye,' Exhibit B).
 .
 Carrier also rejected the claim on the theory that the Agreement relied
 uj,c-n excludes double time pay on the second. rest day if the service performed was,
 it eriergency work pai-,i for under the call miles--." Carrier supports this theory by
 calli:v; attention to Rule 7(c) (f) derived fran Decision No. 222 Docket 475 of the
 Ilnifieu ~taLes Labor Board effective August 16, 1921.
 In addition, Carrier contends that the work on the rest days was emergency
 work required by weather conditions which could not be anticipated. The Organization
 obJected to the use of this contention because it was not raised on the property.
 We will consider the last objection of the Carrier as properly raised in
 its letter Employes' Submission Exhibit B, by the words, "--but for extra. work at
 Pier 14 due to freezing weather,--." In addition, as we stated in Second Division
 Award 1io. , (Docket No. 6229', "--, the Agreement relied upon by the Organization,
 opens the door to discussion of whether or not an emergency existed."
 On its face, it does appear that the call in rule suggests that all extra
 work would be for an emergency. If this is so, then no purpose would be served by
 the Agreement which amends, "All agreements, rules, interpretations and practices,
 however established--." An agreement reached by the entire industry, enacted as
 Public law is_not an exercise in futility. It must have a purpose which cannot be ( j
 swept aside by an applicati.:n of logic. The later Agreement is au amendment of prior
 agreements -and. rules and must be interpreted. as a fact, not as a fiction. low
 No time need be spent over the'typp or location of the assignment. The
 words used Z in the National Agreement are, "--provided he has worked all the hours i
 of his assignment in that work week and has worked. on the first rest day of his I
 work week.. -... ";, (underlining added.). , It serves no purpose to argue about "assign-
 ments" uhen'the Agreement requires that, "hours.", be worked.
 The claimant has. qualified.for double time pay unless he was needed for,
 "emergency work paid for under the call rules--." Is this an ambiguity or .does
 this seeming inconsistency recognize a situation under the call rule as something
 which leaves no rocxn to doubt that an emergency exists? To give credit to the
 existence of the National Agreement, more than mere "lip service", we must assume i_
 the answer to be ,that the emergency contemplated is the occurrence of the unexpected:
 something which.should not happen, ail things being equal. In this case, the condition
 occurred in the winter. Cold weather is expected and can be forecast with reasonable
 accuracy. If the open top lradq·' -cal cars have been subjected to rainfall, it did
 not require split second timing :o start up the t'nawing pit. Carrier's Submission I.
 p.5, 6, refers to a possible sixteen or more hors with temperature below 30 degrees
 plus wet coal to, "call for starting up the thawing pit sooner." Although this
 combination_of_events may provid.e a need for action on a rest day, an emergency is
 not indicated. This result is to be found also in Second Division Awards No. 6252
 and No. 6336.
 Form 1

Page 3 Docket No. 6228
 2-C&O-MA ·' 72

                        A WA R D


        Claim is sustained.


                        NATIOMAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest : ~^ ~.
          Executive Secretary


Dated. at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day o! Septeaberp 1972.

 t