Form 1 rrATIOTTTAL RAILROAD ADS-~ruTT;:7TTT BOA J) A,.va ra 7;o.




Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Disnu.te: (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Enoloyes:












Fi nd1. nr; s
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, 1?.pon the whole record and. all the evidence, Finds -that:

Y 1'~ ;~r,.l_'- o~· ,. rri r.~d _:.) *,.P ,.h~ ._ n :f f '
 dispute are eS7;_c - - T_!,y C^.~ _. ..r and `:.l`lt%~ ., w~i. ~1 ~1.1L ITi"'.'..n~ri;~ O_ tile
 Railway Labor Act r,.s aPoroved June 21, 1931".

 This Division of the Adjustment Bc;°ard has jurisdiction over the dispate involved herein.

The material facts out of wa^ich the dispute arose are not in controversy. Carrier operates at- Centralia. Tllinois, a najor car building, facility, at which elr:ployes frcn various crr>tfts vor': in the bui ld=.n; and "eau=.lain_ of railroad f rear;ht cars and ema-i c-ent. Of the fivs trwc?,:s in the long car shed three are used for he~t%7y''~Y'Ph4.biiiti~n and, t.TO are used for an asse:bly line type of new car build-_'a'. ',-'.ad order car.; are grouped on a stub trac1i and repaired as t'.nre, space and ranpo.,rer permit.

 In 1976 Carrier vra.s involved in a l~ajor ~c:;r Czar rronrara of buildin one-hundred na-,,T l_Ov fed ~o.~cccWw cars 2t Centralia. _n,plc;,re°s from rLany different crafts, includin- scxr,e 8,0 Car"r~n Were involved on that project.
 Form 1 Award No. 8119
 Page 2 Docket ITO. 7669
 2-IC G-CM-' 79
An integral part of the new car construction line was a 1000 Ton joining press used to fabricate body bolsters, cross bearers and side stakes. That press was operated by members of the Blacksmith Craft.

 On Tuesday, August 10, 1976, the 1000 Ton press broke down and Carrier was unable to repair it. The machine was under warranty by an outside concern which had recently rebuilt it, and Carrier called i n experts from that , Company. At 2:00 PPM on August 10 Carrier aylnaunced that all of the Claimants would be laid off at the close of business and the l;ew Car Program suspended until the press was repaired. The remaining 20 emplcyes in the Carmen Craft and the employees in the other crafts continued to work during the shutdown of the press and were utilized to perform other work including repairs of bad order cars. Repairs to the press were completed and the Claimants recalled to work by l-bnday August 16, 1976.
In the instant claim the organ.::ation, on behalf of Claimants, maintains that Carrier violated Rule 28(a) of the Schedule Ar;reement by furlou-_^,hinClaimants without fire (5) d~-_·s <a:dvarice notice. Carrier resconded that ~.tr.1=: 28 is superseded _n this case by Art-'cle 1I of the . :~:~_?_ 2, 1970 ,~,tion::l
Agreement, because th si tuatwc:n rey.~4racl an "~__,.rgenc,.y f arc-, ,. reduT,. ~-an
 Thus, reduced to J j~-'t,_;._^_ts -:svence, u}a our:2tion for ~,t~:x'd is whether
 the exculpatory provisions of Article -I= (a) are a_pr2J_cai, _e in ti:is case. If so then Carrier :azst prevail, if not then the clair:> n.ust be sustained.
notice required by Rule 28(a). But Cari(~r acsserts the affirmative defense
 of "emergency" which is cadi fed in_rtic le II. _ccordingly, Carrier has
 tk f .,r irc tt the 1n i".rticle II have b-en
 .e burden o~ ,.._ov.,,~ hL_ah~a car.ons met. This reaui r. es establishing as a cons i ti on rrccedent the occurrence of an event or circw^=stance embraced by thw term "en°r ;,ency c-ondition" as it is used in that Article. It also requires establihin>g, the proxi.rate causation of the condition subseauent i.e., sus,pensilon of Carrier's operations in whole or in part. Award 2-6611.

 The first question for consideration is whether the breakdown of the 1000 Ton press constitutes an "emergency condition" as that ter7, is used in
Article II. The contract clause does not expressly define the phrase, although several examples are listed:

        "FORCE l-,.T-hUCTIO?? RUI-E


        Insofar as applicable to the enoloyees covered by this agreement, Article VI of the Agreenent of August 21; 1954 is hereby amended to read as follows:


            (a) Rules, agreements or practices, however established, that require advance notice to employ ees before tcarl~orarily c,kia.~i~_li:' _ -'osi tlons

            o 1, ~, uctio, e b

            ii '-inc- temoorary 'LoLce re, U aS axe 'n -e y

            r ~aX- " .I modified to eliminate any requirement - or such

Form 1 Award No. 37-9
 Page 3 Docket No. 7669
 2-ICG-CM-'79
 "notices under emergency conditions, such as flood,
 snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire or
 labor dispute other than as covered by paragraph (b)
 below, provided that such conditions result in
 suspension of a carrier's operations in whole or in
 part. .tt

 Each of the parties has marshalled a number of awards and prior decisions, all of which we have reviewed. None of the alleged precedents is directly on point. Most deal vrith the interpretation of the word "emergency" in a contract clause other than Article II, See eg, Awards 1-16 369, 2-157, 2-'+x+59, 3-10965, 3-11043. In all of the cited cases, the contract clauses under scrutiny simply mentioned "emergency" or "emergency conditions" without example or elaboration. In those cases, the Boards utilized the well established maxim of contract interpretation which holds th-4it, absent some other indication of the contraac ties; pafti es' interest, nonnal dictionary usage would prevail in construing; contested 1 anguage. The teach 4n_ of those cases is that in the absence of so-a other evidence of intent the rhr:se emergency cond'-'11ons would m°wn do unforeseen colfbination of ciri'mnstances requiring ir=ed _ate action". ,-e'astcr 's :evT 'iorld Dictionary,. r:vlaards 3-10839, 3-10965, 3-110',3. In th a Dresent case lire do not deal solely with the bare unadorned phrase "eMergencv conditions" because the contractinr n,rties have included ex,~,n? es of son-2 of the conditions they intended to be covered by the e.-ergency force reduction clause, to tr~.t "... such as flood, snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthqua~se, fire or labor dispute..." (other than a labor dispute between Carrier and its o.a-n employees).

 The fact that nachine breakdot,Tn is not listed among the exanuples in the provision does not automatically preclude further consideration of the question of its coverae under Article II. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the words "such as" are words of de: cript-ion and not necessarily words of preclusion. Award 4-2823. The listing of specific examples can sometimes provide a basis for infering that the parties intended only items of the sane nature or class to be covered by the gener~l terms of a contract clause. This principle of contract construction is 1r1nmm as the "Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis". However, that doctrine is of no help here because the ex,.mples listed are not homogeneous ie. inclusion of the item "labor dispute" among acts of natural cat-.strophe. At bottom line, therefore, the interpretation of Article I7 is left to anPly on a case by case basis the general usage theory or dictionary definition principle utilized in so many of the earlier Awards.

    In the particular facts and circiunstances of this case we are persuaded

that the unantici.p a-ted breakdown of the 1000 Ton press, upon which the
 entire assembly process was dependent, did constitute an "emergency condition"
 within the co:^m on ordinary meaning of that term. We hasten to point out
 that every machine nalf'.:nction cannot meet the definitional test;''1) The
 condition or sit-,:at-ion must be une-pected and not preventable by the exercise
 of due, protper ,jud~;nent, discretion and action; 2) Me situation demands
 immedia-Ea remiedialaction", .As,ard 1-16 36 g.
 Form 1 Award No. 8119
 Page 4 Docket No. 7669
 2-IC G-CM- ' 79

 But in our considered judgment the record supports a conclusion that breakdown of the 1000 Ton press in this case does meet that test. Nor can there be any serious arg u:ent that Carrier's operations were suspended in part as a direct result of that equipment f%ilure. Construction of new car assembly -eras dependent upon the press stamping cut mu.terials for car building. Carrier found worl~.Tnr 20 of the Carrren arid the employees in other crafts, but could not use Claimants. The evidence is disputed but we believe the preponderance supports Carrier's assertions that it took all reasonable steps to provide work for the employes during the shut dolrm of the press. Given the facts of record in this particular case the claims must be denied.

                      A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                          HATIOliaL RAILROAD ADJUST,EI:7 BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustnent Board

 By ., f f°"..'-rr~-~''.~·-- _ :*.,~, o- ~!....--.
 c_/'R se_~::ai:ie Br:.sch - Aci:.rini s trati ve -'asi s tart

 Dated It Chicano Illinois this 27th day of Septefiaer, 1979.
 D ., >