Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7780
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 75+3
2-Cf1StP&P-CM-' 79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 76, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company,
hereinafter referred to as the Carrier did unjustly deprive
Carman Edward F. Parsons, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the
Claimant, of working at
his
usual and regular assignment as a
regular assigned member of the St. Paul., Minnesota Wrecking Crew
on March 7th, and 8th,
1976
thereby unjustly depriving him of
twenty four and one half hours pay at the time and one half rate
of pay.
_ That the Carrier be ordered to compensate the Claimant in the
amount of twenty four and one half hours at the time and one half
rate of pay.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning oft he
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On the claim dates, Claimant was a regularly assigned. member of the
St. Paul, Minnesota wrecking crew. On March
7, 1976
a derai Lnent occurred
at Lansing, Iowa, which required the services of the St. Paul Wrecking Crew.
When the crew caller was unable to reach the claimant at the telephone number
he left, the Carrier called a replacement. There is no question but that if
the Claimant was "available" for service he was entitled to be called. If
the Claimant was "available" the Carrier violated the agreement in the
instant case.
I
Form 1 Award No.
770
Page 2 Docket No.
751+3
2-CMSt P&P-C b2-
` 79
When the crew caller called the number left by Claimant he reached the
claimant's father who reported that claimant was not at the father's house but
at a lake some 45 minutes from St. Paul. Claimant's father indicated that he
would be able to get a hold of his son and advise him to report for work.
The claimant's father was advised that claimant would be considered unavailable
and a replacement was called.
Under the circumstances set out above, can the claimant be considered
available so as to render the Carrier's action of calling a replacement
violative of the Agreement between the parties? We think not. Carrier is
not required, in emergency situations, such as that present in the instant
case to rely on a relay communications system such as that suggested by
claimant in this case. Perhaps claimant's father could have reached him
and perhaps claimant could have arrived at St. Paul in time to leave with the:
crew. Under emergency circumstances the carrier is not obliged however
to place itself in the position of leaving the make up of a wrecking crew open
to question. When the Carrier was unable to reach claimant and found that he
was some 1+5 m-:Lnutes from St. Paul, they were within their prerogative in
considering him "unavailable" even though the father of claimant indicated
he would be able to reach him. The Carrier must be able to move swiftly and
with some assuredness of outcome in emergency situations.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNrE2IT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~_
`RU~emarle Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of January,
1979p