y- Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6757


          The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irving R. Shapiro when award was rendered.


      ( System Federation No. 66, Railway Employes'

      ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. O.

      Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                      ( Soo Line Railroad Company


      Dispute:Claim of Employes:

1. That under the provisions of the current controlling agreement,
 the Carrier on January 4, S, 6, 7, and 8, 1972, violated said
 agreement, by augmenting the.Minnea polls, Minnesota wrecker
 and wrecking crew with a 65 ton crane, two (2) bulldozers,
 and manpower frog the Robert R. Schroeder, heavy construction
 Fire of Glenwood, Minnesota, a t the derailment of twenty-four
 (24) cars and tyro (2) diesel units at Greenwald,, Minnesota,
 which occurred on December 29, 1971.
 2. That accordingly, the following eight (8) regularly assigned
 --.~ members of the Superior, Wisconsin wrecking crew who were
 s ready and ova ilable, to be compensated fourteen (14) hours
 ~.~` travel time to and from derailment plus thirty-two and one
 third (32 1/3)' hours in retailing for a total of forty-six
 and one-third (46 1/3) hours time and one half pay each:

                        R. Michalski T. Maloski.

                        R. Pearson J. Breeze

                        D. Noble N. Groskrutz

                        H. Lindemann J. Mockler


      Findings:


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


      The carrier or carriers and the employe or esployes 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 he:ring


~..._.
      thereon.


~.. .
 Form l Award No. 6757
 Page 2 Docket No. 6605
                                      2-SOO-CM-1 74 ,_


This claim steps from a dispute concerning the application and interpretation of they following rules of the controlling agreement between the Parties; which we quote in part:

        "Rule 28. 1. "None but mechanics ... shall do mechanics'

        work " '


        Rule 97. "Regularly assigned wrecking crews... will be composed of Carmen ..."


        Rule 97. "When wrecking crews are called for wrecks and derailments outside of yard limits* a sufficient number of regularly assigned crew will accompany the outfit ..."


        Rule 94. "Carmen's work shall consist of ... all ether work generally recognized as Carmen's work."


Based upon those Rules; Petitioner contends that Carrier's regularly assigned wrecking crew, stationed at Superior, Wisconsin, with their wrecker, should have been ordered by Carrier to assist the Shoreham, (Minneapolis) Minnesota craw to char the wreck and rera il_moveable equipment, instead of its employing an outside contractor to supply a sixty five. ton crane and two bulldozers with manpower to operate same, to effectuate the work, which -involved the derailment of two diesel engines and twenty-four cars at Greenwald$ Minnesota. As indicated, the claim is for payment to the regularly assigned Superior, Wisconsin wrecking crew for time it would have worked had they been called for this wreck sad derailment.

 As stated in our recent Award 6602, "This Board has rendered many Awards dealing with the problems of interpreting rules concerning wrecking service..." In Award 6257 we reviewed at length a number of the Awards in which the criteria to be applied are clearly and .definitively delineated. (See Award 6177 (Simons)) and Awards cited
therein; the lengthy quotation from Award 1757 (Cgrter); and the cost ,
 significant statements in Award 4190 (Anrid). Although, Award 6257
 sustained the claim therein because of the specific facts pertaining
 therein; it states that we find no warrant to "disturbing the basic
 concept underlying the ... cited Awards..." The key facet applicable
 to the instant claim is "...the determination of a need for a wrecking .
 crew ... involves management discretd.ian and iudstnent ... Carrier? a
 decision can successfully be challenged before this Board on_ ly_on the
 ound that it was arbitra capricious, discriminate or an-abuse of
 managerial discretion . ..." Award 4190) (Emphasis supplied)

 In its denial letter of April 179 1972 (Petitioner and Carrier Exhibits "H"), Carrier sets forth

 "the determination to use the mobile crane was made when the Shoreham wrecker arrived to clear the wreck site. One locomotive was 50 feet from the track requiring the use of mobile equipment. An additional wrecker would not have been of any assistance in this circumstance,"
 Form 1 Award No. 6757
 Page 3 Docket No. 6605
 2-S00-CM-'74

 This was not controverted by Petitioner, nor did it produce any evidence whatsoever that Carrier possessed equipment of the type properly determined by Carrier to be necessary for this wreck cleanup and derailment. Its only argument relative to this is that there allegedly exists a past practice that when outside,contractor's equipment and manpower we=e employed, two of Carrier's wrecking crews were actively engaged on the work. This assertion was duly dealt with and disposed of in Award 6602, which involved a similar dispute between the same Parties as those before us in this case, and the holding therein is fully applicable hereto. Carrier's conduct was therefore not violative of the controlling agreement.

 Petitioner urges sustaining of this claw on the ground that the denial of the claim initially presented to Carrier's L. & C. Foreman at Superior, Wisconsin did not satisfy the requirements of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement in that the Foremen did not notify the local Chairman, "in writing of the reasons for ..." disallowing the claim. The Foreman stated that he was unaware of the incidents referred to in the claim, they having occurred "on another Division." Nothing in this record reveals that this was not an accurate statement on the part of this Carrier officer and his reply was therefore appropriate and was in compliance with the obligations imposed by Article _V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.
                      A WA R D


    Claim Denied.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      BY Order of Second Dibision


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 tosesaria Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of Julys 1974.
 s