Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7833
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7707
 2-CRI&P-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claire of 2nployes:



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 ox employer involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved Jung 21, 193~.

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

Six cars of an Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe train hereinafter referred to as Santa Fe, derailed on Carrier's main line at Rushville, Mu_ssouxi en February 20, 1976. A contractor, Hulchex Wrecking Service., was employed with machinery and ground forces to pexfoxm tze xerail_i ng work. Four Hulcher employees were used to hook chains, cables and pexfox.n the ground work normally performed by Carmen.

 Claim was subsequently filed on behalf of the Claimants, employees of Carrier, for the ground work performed by the four 11n3chex employees.
May 27, 1971 which provides in ,part, that "the carrier has the unrestricted
 perogat3ve to lease, rent or otherwise secure eau3.pnent or machinery to ass' -st
 in the work resulting from derailments," and that the Carrier may ''use
 other than employees re
Form l Award No. 7833
 Page 2 Docket No. 7707
 2-CRI&P-CM-t79

 tgxoundmen' in the perforrnance of work which is normally performed by carmen but only until such time as they can be relieved by carmen who ~4ll be called simultaneously with the 'groundmen' to be relieved." Such "gxoundmen" axe to be relieved within 30 minutes after the carmen arrive at the scene of derailment.

 Carrier alleges that the May 27, 1971 agreement is not applicable because the derailed train was a Santa Fe train operating over Carrier's lines by trackage agreement in effect since 1898 (as amended) and that said agreement makes Santa Fe responsible fox all emergencies in connection with the operation of Santa Fe's trains, including setting out disabled cars, repair and subsequent picking up of such cars. Carrier cites Section 2 of the 1908 arnond:nent to said joint trackage agreement as assigning such responsibility to Santa Fe. Carrier concludes, in view of the above, that since it had no control over the work of retailing, the May 27, 1971 agreement with the Carmen's Organization i s not ap-plica.bleo

 The Organization, in its submission, emphasizes that Carrier has failed to meet its burden oX affirmative defense by not submitting a copy of the trackage agreement Zrith the Santa Fe. The record, however, contains no denial nor refutation by the Organization of Carrier's statement that Santa Fe had the responsibility under the joint trackage agreement for clearing its own wrecked or derailed trains or cars. Thus, it was Santo. Fe, and not Carrier, who contracted z-rith the Hulchex Co. to retail the derailed cars.

 This Board has often held that work perforr:ed must be within the Carrier's cont',rol to assign vo its employees before it is subject to the applicable collective bargaining agre:e:nent. See Third Division Awards 20280 (Lieberman), 2052> (T,_i.eber^ian), 20644 (F;ischen), 21283 (Eischen); Second Division Awards Ta-8G7 (Robertson), 67+2 (Bergman), 7236 (Roadley)o The Second Division has also held that work on cars of a carrier using joint tracks under agreement does not necessarily belong to the carrier who owns the track. See Award x+169 (Har;~,-ood).

 In the instant case, the xexailing of the six cars was the responsibility of the Santa Fe and not this Carrier. Because the Santa Fe T~ras responsible and had control, it, and not the Carrier called the Hulchex Co. to do the retailing. Carrier was without authority to assign the retailing work to Claimants, Santa Fe retained responsibility and authority to deters_in.e how and by whom the re-railing work was to be done. Neither Carrier nor its Carmen could direct otherwise.

 Our attention has been called to a recent Second Division Award, No. 75-+3 (Eischen) involving this Carrier and Organization. In the case covered by that Award, the Board sustained a claim by Carrier's Car-men because the Carrier failed to call Ca=en in its employ to relieve an outside contractor's employees being used as growldmen at a derailment, under the terms of the May 27, 1971 agreement cited above.
 Foam 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7833
 Docket No. 7707
 2-CRT&P-CM-`79

 But that case refers to a different fact situation. In the case covered by Award 751+3, the situati_on involved the xexailing of Carrier's own cars on its own tracks. In the case before us, however, the issue revolves around the right~of another Carrier (Santa Fe) operating on Carrier's tracks under a long-standing trackage agreement and Santa Fe's responsibility and authority to xexail its own cars which had been derailed outside Carrier's yard limits. As previously noted, it eras not controverted that Santa Fe had the responsibility, under the trackage agreement, to perform the rexailing work in dispute. Consequently, such work was not within Carrier's jurisdiction and control and, therefore, not within its authority to assign to claimants covered by the applicable collective bargaining agreements

 Our attention has also been called to other pending cases involving the same pax°ties, where Carrier submitted portions of a trackage rights agreement made by Carrier with another railroad to operate over Carrier's tracks. The axgar:ent is made that a reading of such submissions leads to the conclusion that Carrier does not _pex^.nit another railroad any control of its main line tracks when it is tied up by a derailment extensive enough to require equipment to rexail wrecked or derailed cars. ~~rnile such conclusion, axguo=ndo, may follow from the language of the track-age agreement cited in these pending cases, that conclusion does not necessarily apply to the trackage agreement between Carrier and the Santa Fe which, according to Carrier's uncontxadicted statements in the record before us, make the Santa Fe responsible fox such work. Consistent with prior Board rulings, we must accept Carr iex ` s statements as to Santa Fe's responsibility as established fact, given that such assertion was undisputed and not contradicted by Petitioner.

 Petitioner also points to Rules 110 (Caxmen-Classification of Work and 111 (Z^?reeking Crews) of the current Co=llective Bargaining Agreement to support the instant claim. Ilovrevex, as the Carrier has shown, Rule 110 does not include wrecking ox rerailing work at issue herein and Rule 111+ provides only that "when wrecking crews axe called.,.." No wrecking crew was called in this case.

 In view of the foregoing findings, we cannot sustain the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSTP,MIVT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


4~

 By 1~1

 f

 ~If

 14

Dated at Illinoisa this 7th day of February., 1979.