Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9347
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 883+
 2-C&Nw-CM-'83
 The-Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Cayman of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: and Canada

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
7he 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.

The Claimant alleges that he should have been called to service in the retailing of a snow plan is his capacity as a relief 400 truck driver, since the: regularly-assigned 400 truck driver was absent. (The incident occurred on Claimant's rest day.)

 The Carrier, instead, used another Cayman not so designated. The task took ten and one-half hours, and the Claimant seeks ten and one-half hours' pay at time and one-half.

 There is no disagreement as to whether the Cayman used as a truck driver was a qualified truck driver, but it is apparent that only the Claimant held job assignment 073 Relief Truck Driver.

 The Claimant relies upon Sections 3 through 6, Rules 126 and 127 as revised by memorandum of March 1, 1976 and interpreted by Carrier's letter of February 18, 1976.
 Form 1
 Pa ge 3

 A W A R D
Claim dismissed.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Bog d

Award No. 9347

Docket No. 883+

2-C&Nw-CM- 183


NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By ~ v
 marie Brasch - Admin strative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of January, 1983.
 Form 1 Award No. 9347
 Page 2 Docket No. 883+
 2-C&Nw-CM-' 83

 Sections 3 through 6, Rules 126 and 127, apply to the use of carmen in wrecking service as part of wrecking crews.

In essence, Claimant alleges that the duties performed were emergency road work away from the home station in the nature of wrecking service.

 The Carrier refutes the contention of the Claimant alleging that there was no emergency involved making Rule 10 applicable, but rather the applicable rule is 137 which covers the normal repair and inspection of cars away from the shop.

 It is Carrier's position that the work performed did not involve an emergency and further was not wrecking crew service.

 On the day involved, the Carrier seat carmen to Carroll to repair NAIL 50520 and when that work was completed, the crew went to Breda to retail CNWX 200639, a snow plow.

 The Carrier alleges that if the retailing were an emergency, then the first task would have been delayed until its completion of the retailing function.

 Carrier would apparently support the claim if emergency road service or wrecking service were involved.

 Carrier admits that the truck involved is classified as a "wrecking truck", but alleges that this fact alone does not mean that wrecking service was involved.

 Award 4682 (Second Division) has been cited -to support the contention that a derailment does not necessarily require the services of a wrecking crew. In that matter, the use of a wrecker was not necessary to the rerailment.

 Award 6177 (Second Division) held that a wrecking crew need not be assigned to a derailment when no wrecking outfit is needed.

 This Board accepts the principle that wrecking service would have to be involved if the Claimant is to succeed.

 Neither party to the grievance has described in detail the nature of the repair service at the first stop and the details involved in the retailing of the snow plow. The 'nature of the service depends upon the specific functions performed.

 From the record, we cannot determine if a wrecking crew was dispatched, what the nature of the retailing was, what other circumstances, if any, would establish the existence of an emergency.

 The Board finds that both parties to the grievance were not clear or complete in their description of the events or the arguments for their positions.

 Under these circumstances since the burden is on the Claimant to establish the facts necessary to support his contentions, the Board will dismiss the claim.