Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJIJS=AT BOARD Award ilo. 8186
 uECOIT) DPJ'ISION Docket No. 8010
 2-C&z1h'-CM- `79

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert E. Fitzgerald, Jr. when guard was rendered.

 ( System Federation No. 76, Railway Employes

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

 Dispute: Claim of Ernployes
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

Gus LaScala
 Dick Wi.Lnot
 Gene Miller
 Mike Williams

 July 20, 1977
 Ju.~,.y 20, 1977
 August 9, 1977
 August 9, 1977

 2, That the Chicago and North Western TI°;tnaporta.t~.o~i Ca.nparq be
 ordered to ccynnensate Cax,~..en (at5.s I z3ca,la, Dick 4J.01-°!ot, Gene
 Miller and ML-e Williams for one-hall' hours pay at the strai.ght
 time rate for the above identified dates, and that the
 Transportation Comnanl, in the fixture discontinue its practice
 of depriving carzncn of compensation for meals .periods whale
 away from home point on emergency road work.

 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 employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrie;v and e?r~pleye ?-r~.thin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

This claim arose -Then the carrier assigned the four employees to mock at locations other than the=! r re;70~ar reporting location, and failed to pay them for the half hour lunch time talc.Ln wh.ile away from their normal reporting station.

 It is the position of the c1a -'_ri~ants that any assi ?~nent -",way frc:n their regular reportin~; station roust necessarily amount to an er.ercyency assJ n~nt
 Form 1 Award No. 3186
 Page 2 Docket PTo. 8010
 2-C&JIW-CM-' 79

 within the meaning of Rule 10. They cite previous decisions where Rule 10 had been applied to assignments away from the home station of the employee in an.emergency situation. The claimants argue that the fact of their work away from their regular reporlu-ing station necessarily requires the continous payment for all tire spent, including the lunch hour, based upon a past practice for such payment.

 The carrier denies that the employees were engaged in an emergency assignment. The carrier also contends that the Carmen are not necessarily restricted to work at the place of reporting because of a recent change in the nature of the job duties, the change concerned. the requirement that carmen be able to drive a truck. The carrier argues that this necessarily requires that not all. work away from the reporting station is emergency work..

 Further, the carrier cites Rule 153 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which excludes lunch tine from time for which pay i s given to employees regularly assigned to road work. This rule is applicable to situations where the employee leaves and returns to the home station on a daily basis.

 Finally, the carrier argues that the claimants have not met their burden of proof that the work involved was emergency work within the meaning of Rule 10.

 The record reflects that two of the employees were engaged in changing of a wheel, and the other two were engaged 3.n unloading cars. Further details of the need for such work is absent from the record.

 The basic question to be answered is whether the assignment of employees to work other than at their reportinE station is necessarily emergency work within the meaning of rule 10. The argument of the claimants is not persuasive.

 While assignments away from regular reporting stations may involve work that is emergency in nature, it is not reasonable to conclude that every assignment away from the regular reporting station amounts to a real emergency,

 The claimants' argument that an emergency is any situation that is unexpected is riot acceptable. Any work situation has occurrences which cannot be anticipated by either the employees or the employer. To conclude that any variation from the work routine is an an-ergency does not logically follow.
Rule 137 provides that carmen may be assigned to road work. The types of work described in this rule include work on wheels and "vrork of a similar, character". Therefore, it is clear that the record in the instant case does not support the conclusion that the work engaged in by the four claimants was emergency work within the meaning of Rule 10.
 Form 1 Award No. 8186
 page 3 Docket No. 8010
 2-CWTU-C!4 ' 79

 This is not to say that the carrier's argument, that an evolution has occurred in the nature of carmen's work which would allow assignment at any location throughout the system is valid. The claimants' argument that any such evolution would be a barg,ainable matter is well taken. Thus, any basic change in the method of work assignment would be a matter of negotiations between the parties.

 It is undisputed that the employer has paid for time away from home station in the past. Hoirever, such practice does not require an automatic application of prior decisions which found emergency -work situations within the meaning of Rule 10. fern the record does not containuff-ici.ent evidence to conclude that a true emergency existed within the meaning of that rule.

    Claim denied


                          NATIONAL RA TL.~iOAD AT) JUSifi,E,T_IT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Bys''.t.--... ~' 1-~.-'L-s...~r ~...__--,-r. . .

 _,,-,i;or~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a( Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November, 1979.