"f

 Form 3. IJ.AT7IONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD . Award No. 645+
 ( SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6250
 .2_SCL-CM-'T3
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 System Federation No. 4.2, Railway Employes'
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
                . ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


Dispute: Claim of Employes:.

          1. That under the provisions of the controlling agreement, the Carrier

          on June 19, 1971 violated the agreement when it used the services

          of Steel City Erection Company's Mobile wrecker unit and two employees

          of that company to assist Carmen in rerailing cars TM 477837, TTX

          1021.17, and S.P. 650694, at Southern transfer switch on the west

' main in the Birmingham Yard.

          2. .'hat accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the following

      . , Carmen three and one half (32) hours at overtime rate, Jesse Johnson

            and D. R. Bazzels.


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

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

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

          Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


. The Organization states that three cars were derailed at a transfer switch on tile main line within the yards at Birmingham, Alabama; that the carrier
 er.ployed a mobile derrick crane with two operators. from an outside concern; that . i
 three carmen were called for the derailment. The claim is made that two addition:~
 carren should have been called to rennlace the two outside crane operators, for a
 pericd of 315 hours. It is not clear from the record why overtime pay is demanded
 unless we assu:ue that the claimants would have been called from the overtime board.

 The carrier states that at approxi;ma+ely 7:10 A.M.., t:.ro cars were derailed;
 that the hired crane arrived a t 8:45 A.M., that the cars ware rerailed by 10:20 A.P1.,
 a to-Gal of one hou-' and thirty five minutes. The carrier states that a crane was
 f -;a~cled but that the nearest carrier owned derrick was ut ~Mulaxlta, 160 mil es axay,
 and would require 10 hours to reach the derailed cars; that :.he need to clear the
 rattin line promntlf was an emergency which justfied the rental of the outside off
 tr~.~c~. a~.atoo::~ve -It,pe crane. In addition, it i.s asserted that the otztsi~ie cram

                                                                1

    Y


o I

 Form 1 Award No. 6454
 Page 2 Docket No. 6290
 . 2-SCL-CM-'73

 operator and oiler who came with the crane had to be used because they were familiar with the operation of this expensive equipment. The carrier also argued that it complied with Rule 103 (c) by calling three carmen who were sufficient for the rerailment, and contends that if it called all the carmen employed at the yard, no more than 3 would have been required to assist while the crane did the lifting. The carrier argued that the claimants are not members of a vrecking crew, are not experienced in operating this type of crane; that a wrecker derrick was not used., that the carrier has the right to decide when to use a wrecker derrick and that none but carmen did carmen's work.

 The Organization's position is that the carrier has the obligation to have equipment and tools of the carmen's work where needed at all times and that carmen should be trained to use and operate the equipment. It is also argued that Rules 15, 26, 39, 99, 100, 103 and 114 have been violated, particularly Rule 103, dealing with wrecking crews.

 After examining the Rules referred to by the Organization, it is our opinion that Rules 15, 26, 39, 99, 100 and 114, relate to the Organization's objection to the two outside crane operators because they are not carmen, are not members of the carmen's union, hold no seniority and., in short,, are not carrier's employes of any classification.

 The Agreement does not require that the carrier maintain a wrecker derrick or where it should be stationed. This derailment took place in the yards. The nearest wrecker derrick and crew were 160 miles away. "Emergency", may be a relative term. I-Then the derailment occurred, there may not have been an immediate emergency. An emergency would develop, however, if the main line was blocked for the ten hours it would take for the eqaipment to arrive from Atlanta. The carrier was justified in renting the automotive crane to rerail the cars without delay and did not violate the agreement in so doing.

 Rule 103, headed Nrecking Crews" is confined to the rights of the employes -;:ho-*are assigned to such crews. Claimants were not assigned to a wrecking - crew. Claimants were not wreck derrick engineer and firemen as referred to in Rule 100 (a).

 The work required wrecking equipment. Rule 103 (c) requires the necessary number of wrecking ere-wr members to be called when the wrecker is used within yard limits but no wrecker and crew was available. The next sentence of this rule requires only the use of sufficient carmen within yard limits. Rule 103 (d) permits the use of men of any class as additional me:roers of wrecking crews to perform work consistent with their classification, thereby indicating that the work need not be performed exclusively by carmeno If the wrecking crew was available, the claimants may not have been called.

 Award No. 2343 of this Division and subsequent Awards have held that r_erailirg cars within yard limits, in general, is not exclusively carmen's work. in our Awards Nos. 5768 and 5812, it was decided that other than caxmen may operate a crane or wrecking derrick when eircwmstances justify such action.

                                                                f


                                                                I

    Form 1 Award No. 61+54

    Page 3 Docket No. 6290


                                                                I


    Considering the facts of this case, we need determine only, "whether or not the claimants should have been called". No proof has been offered to show that they could have taen the place of the two outside employes to rerail the cars without delay. We find that in this situation and with these particular claimants the carrier did not viol-ate the Agreement by failing to call them. Obviously, sufficient carmen were called.


                              A W A R -D


          Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          . By Order of Second Division


Attest:
            .~ - ~~--~..- '~%


! Execut1ve Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February, 1973.