Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8gOf
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8936
 ' 2-MC-EW-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gilbert H. Vernon when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Maine Central Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employee:







Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The aerrier or carriers and the employe or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

The Claimant's normal working assignment is from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 P.m., Monday through Friday, with Saturdays and Sundays as rest days. The Claimant"s point of employment is Bangor, Maine. On Sunday, February 25, 1979, the Claimant was called to do road repairs on Engine 261 at Costigan and reported at 12:15 a.m. Upon his return-to Bangor at 7:00 8.m., February 25, he was again called to go to Calais to perform road repairs on Engine 581 and he subsequently returned to Bangor at 3:30 P.m.

 The claim essentially contends that for the second call (the one to Calais) the Claimant should be paid double time. The dispute involves the interpretation and application of the following portion of the December 4, 1969 National Agreement which states in pertinent part:


F orm 1 Award No. 890
 Page 2 Docket No. 8936
 2-MC-EW-182
 of his assignment in that work week and has worked on the first
 rest day of his work week, except that emergency work paid for
 under the call rubs will not be counted as qualifying service
 under this rule, nor will it be paid for under the provisions
 thereof."

 The critical issue in this case is whether wither period of overtime worked by the Claimant was "emergency work paid for under the call rules". If it is found that it was emergency work, the claim clearly must be denied. The pertinent contract provision is clear that any service performed in connection with emergency work will not count as qualifying the employee for double time on second rest day.

 The Carrier claims that doubly ties should not be paid for the period of ?:00 a.m. to 3:30 P.m. because in both instances the work was emergency in nature and therefore sloes not qualify under the rule .for double time pay. The work in' question, it is asserted, was in fact emergency work performed under Rule 7 which reads as follows:



The Carrier, in support of this assertion, made the following statement in their submission as to the nature of the emergency work performed by the Claimant:



The Organization argues that the employee was not performing emergency work. It is their contention that the work performed by the Claimant was work regularly performed by him at the locations in question. They contend that the Carrier has failed to present any evidence that an emergency existed. In connection with the Carrier's statement that the work was done in cont#ection with stalled locomotives A~rb route, the Organization entered an objection in the record that such a
 r:&ta:nont was new evidence never before presented on the property.

    In reviewing the record, we find there is sufficient evidence to conclude

;:hat the work performed by the Claimant on his first rest day was emergency road
 ;:...rl~ and therefore does not count toward. qualifying for double time for the work lie performed on his second rest day. In ponnection:with the Organization's v:a.~;FLS:tion about new evidence, the Board agrees that the precise wording of the ::~.ste.-ront node by the Carrier in their submission regarding the nature of the
    ~- .~.°gereop cannot be found in the record. tiowever, after a thorough reading of y: ~,rrespondence, it can be conclusively inferred-from the Carrier's statements . ':hey did assort on the property that an emergency did in fact exist. The

Form 1 Award No. 8905
 Page 3 Docket No. 8936
 2-NC-EW-182

 evidence as to whether there was an emergency is much more than a mere assertion as suggested by the organization. Farther the term "emergency" should be given a more broad meaning than is !3uggested by the Organization. We do not agree with the Organisation that Rule ;~ ~ limits the meaning of the term "emergency" with the examples therein used and w·. find thitt the term "emergency" should be given its ordinary meaning. Moreover, the cormespondence makes it clear that both locomotives were experiencing problems on the line of road which required immediate attention. The work performed was not routine as suggested by the Organization. Clearly the situation falls within the normal definition of the word "emergency" as adopted by this Board in previous cases. Further, work performed by the Claimant was clearly "road work" and this also strongly suggests that it is covered by Rule 7 and thus exempt from double time pay provisions.

 In summary, .t is the finding of' the 71,oard that the claim must be denied because the work performed on the first rest day was emergency work paid under Rule 7 which, by the express provisions of the December 4, 1969 Agreement, exempts t?*:~Ga:cies from pey'iqg double time an the second rest day.

                        A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ·M __ tr ;
      o marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of February, 1982.