Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9272
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9399
2-CR-EW-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.

( System Council No. 7, International Brotherhood of
( Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute: -



Dispute:Claim of Employes:





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 employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within 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.



Claimant was assigned as an Electrician at the Carrier's Diesel Terminal at Avon, Indiana when on September 25, 1979 the Carrier dispatched him to Martinsville, Indiana to troubleshoot a disabled diesel locomotive. The Claimant claimed three (3) hours additional pay under Rule 2-A-4(b) which states:



Eseentially, the Organization here contends that the work was neither an emergency nor within the scope of work normally performed by the Claimant; it points to Rule 2-A-1 (b) which requires assignments to be bulletined, specifying aspects of such assignments including location. Here, the Organization asserts, the
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 9272
Docket No. 9399
2-CR-EW-182

bulletin established the Avon, Indiana facility as the Claimant's work station and a deviation as in this case results in a violation thereof.

According to the Carrier, on the date in question the Claimant was properly in road service and properly compensated under Rule 4-H-1. The Carrier also describes the work performed by the Claimant as an "emergency" as contemplated by Rule 2-A-4(b); the Organization contends the Carrier's defense of emergency was an after thought and not proven on the record.

What the record does not demonstrate is to whom such disputed work should have been assigned if not the Claimant and others at the Avon facility. Obviously, the diesel unit was disabled as per the Claimant's own statement establishing the claim. It is also clear that work on his part was necessary to return the unit to service. Rule 2-H-1 establishes the conditions for compensation for road service and thus recognizes the potential for such work. While it is reasonable to argue that the Bulletin establishing the Claimant's assignment could have established road service as an expected part thereof, its exclusion does not foreclose such work. In the instant case, we find no basis to conclude that the Claimant was improperly assigned. We also note the nature of the work and conclude that its assessment as an emergency was reasonable under the circumstances.

A W A R D

Claim is denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

7

By .fi.

    Roemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of July, 1982.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division