Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6379
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6229
 2-C&O-CM-'72




Parties, ~o.,Dis-pute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of EbMloyes






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's regular assignment was eight hours a day Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday as his rest days. It is not disputed that he was called from the overtime board to work on his first and second rest days after having, "worked all the hours of his assignment in that work week." The organization contends that this entitles claimant to double time for hours worked on the second rest
 day under Article V of the National Agreement dated April 24, 1970. Claimant was i
 paid one and one half times the rate for the hours worked on both the first and
 second rest days.

 Carricr rejected the claim on the ground that claimant's regular assignment was from 7 A.M. to 3 P.M. as a freight car painter whereas the work performed cn the rest days was as a Locomotive Painter from 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. the first rest day, and from 7 A.M. to 7:15 P.M. the second rest day.
 Form 1 Award No. 6379
 Page 2 Docket No. 6220
 2-C&O-CM-'721
1970 agreement excludes emergency work from the double time payment. Carrier reasons
 that all call in work is emergency. work pursuant to Rule 7 (c) of the Agreements
 derived from Decision No. 222 Docket 475 of the United States Labor Board effective
 August 16, 1921. The Organization opposes the use of the emergency work theory before
 this Board because it was not raised or referred to on the property and is submitted
 now for the first time.

 We believe that reference to emergency work in Article V of the April 24, 1970 Agreem-ezit, the Agreement relied upon by the Organization, opens the door to discussion of whe~,her or not an emergency existed. However,, the Organization is correct, in its Re1;:.:Uta.l P.3, where it contends that no double time payment would be possible if
 Carrier's trieory was adopted. i

      The words "assignment" anu "emergency" as used. by the. Carrier are incorrect. I

Article V of the April 24, 1370 Agreement requires only that claimant complete all
 the hours of his assignment during his regular work week and also work on his first
 rest day to qualify for double time on the second rest day. The emergency must be j
 work necessary at the time which if performed at a later time would be too late to
 be of any value. On P.6 of Carrier's Submission the work is referred to as, "urgent"
 so that the unit could b-.used, "as soon as possible." This does not add up to an
 emergency, although it indicates priority sufficient to justify payment.of overtime
 rates to get it done.

 The opinions expressed on the facts of this case and the result reache,: are consistent with Second Division Award No. 6252, 6282, 6283, and 6304.
                        A W A R D


      The clan is sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest:~v~ i
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September,, 19'x.
                                                              I


                                                              i


                                                        4, I


                                                            I


                                                            I