Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7670
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7584
 2-MP-CM-'78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Emnloyes:













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 d.isrute involved herein.

The facts in this case are not in dispute and jna~T be summarized as follows

 - On the evening of March 12, 1976, Train 610 -- composed of two engines and thirteen freight cars -- derailed on a branch line, outside of yard limits, at Derryton, Kansas. Berryton is near Topeka (about 10 miles).
 Form 1 Award No. 7670
 Page 2 Docket No. 7581+
 2-~T-CM-' 78

 - Neosho Railroad Service is a Topeka-based company. The Carrier contracted with Neosho to rerail the train. Neosho's equipment, including the derrick which was used for the rerailing, is on truck wheels.

 - Neosho co-nenced the rerailing work at 7:30 AM on March 13 and completed it at 5:00 1'M on the same day. The Carrier sent a wheel-change truck from Kansas City to assist Neosho. The Driver and Groundman with the truck were Carrier employes but not members of the Carrier's wrecking crew.

 - The Carrier maintains a wrecker and wrecking crew at Kansas City. The wrecking equipment is on track wheels. The members of the wrecking crew are Carmen (clai:aants in this case). The distance between Kansas City and Berryton is about 90 miles.

 - The Kansas City wrecking equipment and. wrecking crew protect the Carrier's trackage as far west as Pueblo, Colorado -- a distance of about 600 miles -- and shorter distances to the north, east and south. The Carrier chose not to activate the Kansas City wrecker and wreckwng crew for the instant rerailing because: 1) the rerailing was of relatively small magnitude; 2) ?1eosho eras nearby and available; 3) avoidance of the use of the Kansas City wrecker and wrecking crew would mean the continued protection: of the rest o_" the Carrier's trackage.

 For the reasons momentarily to be given, we have decided that we crust uphold the Organization in this case (though not the punitive remedy which the Organization is urging). We want first to indicate what we are not holding.

 We are in agreement with the Carrier that it is not obligated to engage its wrecking eciuiprient and wrecking crew for arty and all of its rerailing work. TI-iere unquestionably are underlying circu.n.stances which render the Carrier free to acconplish rerailing by other means. We also accept that the Carrier was not up to anythi ng arbitrary or capricious and, instead, made a decision based on coimlonplace good. business considerations. The question in the case is whether the Carrier acted reasonably, and when=er the contracting-out action, in the facts and circumstances here presented, was barred by the Agreement, as interpreted by several of our previous decisions.

 Next, we will. consider the organization's reliance on Mule 120. This Rule reads as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 7670
 Page 3 Docket No. 7584
 2-MP-CM-'78
 "carmen and helpers axe not on duty, a sufficient number
 of the wrecking crew will be called, if available.
 NOTE: This does not change the practice of using
 train, engine or yard crews to rerail equipment
 being operated by them at time of derai lrnent,
 provided this does not require the use of the
 wrecker outfit or tools other than frogs or blocks."

 The Organization invokes the Rule's first sentence. We do not read the sentence as imposing the obligation which the Organization is asserting. We believe that "wrecking crews" in the sentence must be read as referring to the Carrier's equipment and personnel - for this is the only way to yield consistency with "are called" and "will accompany the outfit". So read, the sentence goes to an event -- i.e., "i-rnen wxecJ:increws are called for wrecks or derail_:ents outside of ~raxd li.mits" -- z;hich did not here happen. Stated othe wi se, ;,he sentence obligates the Carrier to the presence of adequate manpower when its wrecking equi.pl-lent and s.,reckinrcrea are activated. This is not the same thin; as an obligation to activate that equipment and crc,r fox each and every "Treck or derailment. And it is precisely such reading of the sentence ~rrhich the Organization is urging.
reliance on Article VII of the Agreement. This Article i s titled ";,'rec:,:in
 Service" and requires the Carrier under certain circvmstances to call its
 own wrecking-creT-r employes when a contractor's .=rr ecking-sern~tice eaui=ent
 is utilized. The real point here to be made, however, flows from the
 Carrier's assertion with res;~ect to the tune at which Article VII was to
 go into effect. By its o~,n1 terms, .yrticle VII was to go -into effect '" 75
 days after the effective date of this ~:.gree:r~ent" . r,hat the Carrier asserts
 is that, though the Agreement is knoT,m as -the NationaI Agreement of
 December l+, 1975 , its effective date i,ras < aziua? y 12, 1976. 75 days from
 this date brings one to March 28, 1976 -- which is beyond both the date on
 which the instant derailment occurred and the date on which the instant
 rerailrient vork was done. The Organization has entered no refatation of
 the Carrier's sub?:dssion vrith respect -to the 75-day delay.

 We now turn to the aff-It.rmative basis of our decision. The organization has axzued that, in light of the =acts and circ-umistances of this case, Carrier's action of subcontracting was ba~·red by !ltrticle I>T of the December l+, 1975 P?at9_ona.l Agreement, vhicli amended the provisions of Article II of the September 25, 1964 P:grecznient to read as follor~s:
Form 1 Award 1~o . 7670
 Page 4 Docket No. 7584
 2-MP-CM-'78
 "applicable, will not be contracted except in accordance
 with the provisions of Sections 1 through 4 of this










the categoxy of "... all other vrork histo.-ically and generally reco;,nized
 as work of the crafts. . ." -~ithin the neaninL- of -,mended Article TI. However,
 this Board has no jurisdicti on to consider disputes arising from t_1-ticle s
 I and IT of the SF.pte:-=:per 25, 1 964 Agree-lent, as annended. By virtue of
 that Agreenent, tile ~p;~.rties signato-y thereto established a Special Board
 of Adjust:uent (now '>n.uz-W! as. Special Board of ~,djustrnent 570) to have
 exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes (see Second -Division h::-ards 5933,
 5941, 6C31 and 6534 , a ~-ong others). In th:i s vein, prior to the a?nendn?ent
 of Article IT discussed, supra,, this Board decided that it was the National
 Railroad Adjust:neat i;oard, and not Special Board of Adjustment 570, which hC'd
 jurisdiction over wrecking s erv-` Lce cases on the basis that the wor111-- -was
 not set forth or covered in the Camen's cl assiiication oz work 11-LIe
 (Award 232, SBA 570 and Second IM-visicn ;~rrwrds 65c2 arid. 6703).

 Accordingly, v-e. ru^ast consider this disp~.zte in 1 ight of the fact that Article VII of the I;ecerzber I+, 1975 National Agreement ~,-,as not in effect at the tinge the disir-cted incident occurred c~nd in light of the fact that we have no jurisdict:lon to consider r::atters exclusively referrable to Special Board of Adjustment 570.
 Form 1 Page 5

 Award No. 7670
 Docket No. 7584
 2-1,IP-CM-' 78

 In the facts of this case, no emergency existed and Carrier did not argue in that vein. The incident occurred on a lightly used branch line and. the blockage of this line did not, even arguably,?-, delay traf'f'ic or trains. Accordingly, we conclude that the case is squarely on point with previous decisions on this same property and between these same parties. In recent Award 7t+36, we held:

 "The iiu1cher equil-ment used were two bulldozers with side booms, one front-end loader and one heavy D-8 Catepillar tractor all equiped ;with winches. The Organization contends, and it is not denied, that F_ulcher's equipment replaced the Carrier's Wrecker crane in performing the rest of the work of clearing the der^.iLnent. In Award No. 4835, between these same parties to this agreement, we held that two draq_lines used in lieu of the wrecking derrick outside yard limits was a contract violation. We find in the instant case that Carrier violated Rule 119 (a) and 2L-',ale 120 when it a t_li zed the equipment and .personnel of an outside contractor 1n lieu of its own wrecking crane and crew to clear up the derailment at Spa d ra, for that period of time after -the main line Was opened and the emergency conditions of the main line blockage had ceased."

 We are thus upholding the Organization. On the claix!ed remedy, as we have already indicated, we see no zmrrant f'or the punitive a.~-)7 the Organization is urgiag. The affected Camcn are to be compensated at the straight time rate for the hours claimed.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained as and to the extent given in Findings.

NATIONAL PAILROAD ADJC'STNXiv`T BOARD

By Order of' Second Division


Attest: Fxecutive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Dated at`tiicaro, Illinois, this .15th day of AuCast, 1978.