~'.rm 1 iLATIOT?AL RA ILROAD l:DJILT7TifENT BCARD AT,Tard P?o. 6'5~






Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim of. Empl ores




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.

Claimants, all Carmen assigned to positions at Manchester, Il.Y., were furl cnagY October 1, 1971, lea.vinb one Carman at this seniority point. Subsequently, on six days in October and November 1971, Carrier assigned Car.ren from Sayre, another seniority point, and allejedly employees from other crafts, to perform work in the Manchester territory. The work involved rerailing cars or engines on five days and changing wheels on one date.

 Petitioner argues that Carrier violated Rule 31 by its actions. That Rule reads in part:
orm 1 6r ,3'
 T, r
. .-,,xe 2 Docket T_1o., 6452
                                                2-LX-Ct/,-' 73


First, with respect to employees of other crafts performing work belonging to Carmen in the Manchester area., it must be noted that Petitioner has failed to support this allegation with evidence. The mere assertion is not sufficient for the Board to find a violation of the Agreement.

 Carrier. takes the position that the work in question was emergency work, permitting the Carrier to use available and qualified. employees,"despite -seniority ranking". We find. no Rule support or evidence in the record to establish the fact that the work in question was "emergency work". In fact one of the oorork si:uatior:> involved herein related to a car being retracked on October 1;, 1971 and the wheels on this car changed on October 21, 1971; apparently not an emergency.

 Carrier argues further that Carmen do not have the exclusive right to perform the work in question, and cites a number of Awards to support this contention. We rave studied the Awards cited and find no fault in general with the reasoning represented; however, we find that they deal almost exclusively with wrecking crew activities and have no bearing on this dispute. It should. be pointed cut that in this matter Calven were used to do the work and the issue of exclusive right to the work is irrelevant.

        In Award 5739, in a related factual and rule matter, ire said


        "In the status of furloughed, er:,ploye the employer-employe rc?aticrsh_p CO_'2v=__^_t'-^ . "_'h t' ^r»i =,,r=±.- "·=.?:'' C.^.::± .::;;,..5 :.:: C:. : t."_::CC- `"" :.,.: `;-::3,r . ~oC~ work at a particular seniority point is reserved to employes holding seniority in that craft at that point."


Similarly, Award 3318 holds -that furloughed employees were entitled to Carcaen'a work in preference to Carmen from another seniority point. In this dispute we shall sustain the claim except that we will allow pay for four days only, since those are the only days when Carmen frog: another senicrity point were assigned to the Manchester territory The other two days involved the unproved use of employes from other crafts.

                          A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with Findings above.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSnIENT BOARD

                            ' By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad. Adjustment Board.

 By /
    Rc:~marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


('~ted at Chicago, Illinois., this 14th day of November, 1973.