Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7779
 . SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7307
 2-B&O-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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, 193)4.

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

At about 10:50 P.m. on the night of March 29, 1975, a car was derailed near Otter, West Virginia en Carrier's Monor:gah Division. Wreck equipment and crews are maintained both at Grafton, ~~,Test Virginia and at Cowen, West Virginia on the MononFnah Division. The rCCOid shows that those points are some 115 miles apart, but does not esrablv.sh where Otter, West Virginia is located. Claimant is a, regularly assigned Gro,~:rad~ma.tl on the Cowers Wreck Crew, serving as one of the four i 4) regularly ass_,(1>ned GrouncLnen. It is not contended that; either the Grafton or Co·,rcrr wreck crews have exclusive jurisdiction over work at Otter and, all things being equal, either could have
 Foam 1 Award No. 7778
 Page 2 Docket No. 7307
 2-B&O-CM-'7g

 been called out initially. The gravamen of this claim, however, is that Claimant was entitled under Rule 142 to accompany the Cowers Wreck Crew when it was called to retail the car at Otter.

 The record shows that Carrier called out a Foreman and two (2) Groundmen from Grafton at approximately 11:30 P.m. on March 29, 1975; less than one hour after the derailment. The Car Supervisor initially asserted that these men drove the Grafton wreck truck with equipment to retail the car using blocks, retailers and a locomotive. When challenged on this .point, Carrier conceded that the Grafton employees drove private automobiles to the site but asserted that their retailing equipment s~ra,s transported by other means. In any event, the record is clear that those employees did not attempt to retail the car but rather were instructed by Carrier to stand by at the scene until the wreck crane from Cowers arrived. The organization insists that this was part of a preordained plan to "augment" the Cowers crew with groundmen from Grafton rather than call out a "sufficient" number of groundrnen from Cowers to accompany the crane. Carrier for its part insists that its intention was to use only the Grafton crew without a crane but that reappraisal of the situation forced a conclusion that the crane was essential, whereupon the Grafton crew was instructed to remain and assist since they were already at ox near the site. Unfortunately, none of this is supported by solid direct evidence, but only by assertions and circumstantial evidenc-e.

 The Cowers wreck crane and tool cats were called out at 5:30 a.m. on March 30, 1975 with a crew consisting of a Z^Trecksnaster, a Crane Operator, a Cook and two (2) Groundmen. Claimant and the other regular Groundmen were not called; but Claimant alone filed a claim of contract violation. The Cowers crew arrived at Otter approximately 10:00 a.m. and with the assistance of the men from Grafton retailed the car, completing the job about 6:00 p.m. on March 30, 1975. The Cowers crew reported back to headquarters and was relieved at approximately 11:30 P.M. that night.

 The claim in this case asserts that the foregoing establishes a violation of Rule 142, which reads as fob ~ ows



The focus of the dispute is the word "sufficient". Specifically Carrie.c assents that two Groundmen were sufficient to do the retailing of one car and it had no intention or obligation to send any more. The organization maintains that if Carrier had not used the Grafton Csrourdmen to assist and augment the Cowers crew then two (2) Cowers Grounarnen would not have been sufficient. As we view the record, including notably the : Rifting versions of the Car
 Foam 1 Award No. 7779

 page 3 Docket No. 7307
 2-B&O-CM-'7 9

 Supervisor, we axe persuaded that but fox the presence and assitance of the Groundmen from Grafton two (2) Grourdmen of Cowers would not have been suff'icient to do the work. The evidence admittedly is circumstantial but we find it persuasive enough, particularly in light of ,precedent involving these same panties and contract provisions. Awards 3365 and 7307. See also Awards 857, 2185, 2404. As to the damages claimed we adhere to the principle enunciated in Award 3365.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

                  .


By ..~.~9~
 ~~osemarie Brasch.- Actin iiistrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of January, 1979·

 I