r
 4

orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6+82
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6335
 2-WFE-C*-' 7s
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving R. Shapiro when award ryas rendered.

( Railway Employes' Department j

( A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. I
 rtes to DispMte: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes·





Find ings:
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.

 IThis Division of the Adjustment Boaru has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The Carrier is a refrigerator car line, owned by Burlington Northern, Inc. and furnishes its owner railroad refrigerator cars, services related thereto including maintenance and repair thereof. The Carrier, Respondent herein, maintains a car building, repair and servicing facilities at St. Paul, Irfinnesota, where Claimants herein are employed. The movement of refrigerator cars into, out of and in the yard at St. Paul, Minnesota is performed by employes of Burlington Northern, Inc. with equipment of that Carrier.

 On May 17, 1971, a nation wide strike by railroad Signalmen ensured, directly affecting Burlington Northern, Inc. and bringing that railroad's operatiort to a halt. The St. Paul Yard of Carrier continued to function on May 17, 1971, but
 toward the end of the day shift, notice was posted that the operations at the Yard I
 would cease and the employes would be on temporary furlough for the duration of
 the strike. The Signalmen's strike was called off as a result of the signing by
 President Nixon, during the night of May 18, 1971, of a Joint Resolution of Congress
 ordering its cessation. Claimants were recalled to work on May 19, 1971.

 Petitioner charges that Carrier improperly withheld claimants from work on May 18, 1971, there being, it claims, sufficient work in the St. Paul Shop which claimants were ready, willing and able to do. The inability of Burlington Northern, Inc. to move cars in no way affected the work which was in

                                                        r


Form 1 Award No. 6482 i
 Page 2 D 35
 2-VIFE-CM-' 73

 r~ process on May 17 and could have continued to be done on May 18, there was therefore no emergency condition which resulted "in suspension of the Company's operations in whole or in part", according to Petitioner.

 The Carrier avers that the unavailability of Burlington Northern, Inc. services due to the strike made normal functioning of the St. Paul Yard impossible and that this fact caused a suspension of operations in part in the Yard permitting it, under Rule 22(e)(a) of the controlling agreement to make a temporary force reduction without greater notice than was given to claimants.

 The impact of the Signalman's strike has been dealt with by this Division of the Board in three recent Awards (6411, 6412 and 6431). Therein it
 was established that "emergency conditions" within the meaning of Rule 22(e)(a) _
 existed as a result thereof. At the end of the day shift, May 17, 1971, Carrier
 herein had no way of knowing what the duration of the strike would be. Therefore,
 there might not be a need for the cars in the shop for some period of tune and
 they might not be moved out when work on them was completed. Neither Rule 22(e)(a)
 of the Agreement or the caveat of Emergency Board 106 in its recommendations relative
 thereto seek to compel management to perform wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
 work.

 The switching operation was shut down due to the strike and this constituted a suspension of the Company's operation in part. Someone had to make a( decision as to whether the continuation of work on cars at the St. Paul Yard
 during the strike could serve any purpose; the need and demand for them being ,,~r
 at best questionable. Petitioner presented an exhibit marked "F" with its submission.-i
 We are unable to evaluate the significance of the information afforded therein, it
 appearing that this was a communication between the local Chairman and General
 Chairman of the Organization. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate
 that a copy thereof was transmitted to Carrier and that it was the subject of any
 discussions during the processing of the claim on the property. In Third Division
 Award 10601 (Dolnick) and Awards cited therein, it was held that such communications
 are "self serving and can not be accepted as evidence ...".

 The determination of these factors must perforce be made by those with a complete overview of all of the circumstances and conditions, which in structure, obviously is the Management. Hindsight might indicate that their action was not quite right, but at the moment of decision on May 17, 1971, when great uncertainty prevailed, it was not improper. In so holding we are not in full accord with the Carrier's view that it has unilateral authority to determine what it will do in such circumstance and may only be restrained from "flagrant abuse" of its power. This Board has long set forth the concept that the exercise of discretionary powers must not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. In addition, when Rule 22(e)(a) is invoked, we must be satisfied that objective standards are met and the action taken was free of the unacceptable criteria outlined by Emergency Board 106 when it proposed the revisions which brought about the new Rule 22(e).
 Y

 Form 1 Award No. 6482
 Page 3 Docket No. 6335
 2-WFE-CM-'73
 In view of the foregoing, it must be found that conditions and
 circumstances when prevailing permitted the Carrier to cease working at its
 St. Paul, Minnesota Yard on May 18, 1971 with notice to its employes in
 accordance with Rule 22(e)(a).

                          A ZIT A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSnENT HOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest:, t~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April, 1973.