Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9887
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9766
 2-B&O-CM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Refereee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.


Parties to Dispute:
 ( The Bat tj:more and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
No. 1. That Carrier violated the controlling Agreement, specifically, Rule 142-1/2, when on the date of December 10, 1980, they failed to call members of the Washington Indiana assigned wrecking crew to a derailment at Lawrenceville, Illinois, E~2gine 4334 and twelve cars derailing. Carrier called to this derailment an outside contractor, Hulcher l:~nergency Service out of Highland, Illinois, equipment, eight (8) groundmen, (1) Foreman, and three (3) operators. In addition, Carrier called three (3) carmen off the overtime list at Washington, Indiana and instructed them to take the Washington, Indiana wreck truck, blocks, and rerailers, and allowed them to engage in the rerailing and/or wrecking work at this derailment, all in complete and total violation of Rule 142-1/2 of the controlling Agreement.
No. 2. That Carrier be ordered to compensate the following Claimants for all monetary losses incurred by then account this violation as follows: R. E. Clark, Clarence Hicks, and Eugene Matteson, each, for seven (7) hours, pay at the time and one-half rate.
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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisidiction over the dispute involved herein.


On December 10, 1980, the Flora, Illinois Turn Train was involved in a derailment at Lawrenceville, Illinois. Hulcher Emergency Service, an outside contractor and its equipment and forces were called by the Carrier at approximately 11:45 P.M. on the date of December 10, 1980, the Carrier additionally, called three Carmen, not assigned wreck crew members, from the overtime list at Washington, Indiana to this derailment, and instructed them,- to take a truck and blocks and rerailers, and they ultimately arrived on the scene at approximately 1:30 A.M. December 11, 1980. The Claimants herein, contend that they are members o f the Washington, Indiana assigned wrecking crew, and that they were reasonably accessible and available to this derailment, and were not called; and they claim this is a violation of the Agreement.
The Carrier in its Submission referring to Second Division Award 8766 (Marx), states:
 Form 1 Award No. 9887
 Page 2 - Locket No. 9766
 2-B&O-CM-'84
 "Most important, the Board went on to rule that Agreement rules did
 not require that the Carrier 'formally' abolish the Washington wreck
 crew assignments but that the Carrier was obligated to put the former
 wreck crew members on notice that the assignments no longer existed.
 It was further determined that this notice was provided by letter
 dated December 22 , 19 76 . . . "
The Carrier does not cite the portions of Second Division Award 8766 which state that the Carrier was not required to "formally" abolish the Washington wreck crew assignments, but was only obligated to put the former wreck crew on notice that their assignments no longer existed and that such notice was provided by letter dated December 22, 1976. We have examined Award No. 8766 and cannot find the asserted rulings in that Award. In fact: Award No. 8766 points out that the Carrier did not abolish the wrecking crew. Please refer to the third sentence of the below quoted 1 anguage from Award 8766


In Award No. 7926 (Larney) issued on May 16, 1979 a majority of this Board pointed out that the wreck crew assignments are subject to the abolishment procedures of the applicable Agreement. The Dissent to that award pointed out an apparent error in the Majority's citation of :Rule 24(h) as the rule that was amended by Article III of the June 5, 1962 National Agreement and it points out, that it was paragraph (b) of Rule 24 that was so amended.; and made further arguments including the lack of logic in requiring the abolishment of wreck crew assignments. Second Division Award No. 7926 is clear in its requirement that since wreck crew assignments are bulletined positions, they are subject to the formal abolishment procedures of the Agreement. A party acts at its own peril when it fails to follow the findings of a Board majority. The instant case occurred on December 10, 1980 and no evidence of record indicates that the Carrier at that point in time had yet abolished the wreck crew assignments at Washington, Indiana in accordance with the Agreement. There is no showing in this case that the December 22, 1979 letter, which was a declination of a claim by the Carrier's Manager of the Car Department, met the requirements for abolishment of positions set forth in the Agreement.
We find that absent evidence that the Carrier abolished the assigned wrecking crew at Washington, Indiana, we must sustain this claim. The language of Second Division Awards 9014, 8766, and 7926 support this finding. Awards 9014, 8766 and 7926 involving the same parties, established that the presence o f a "wrecking derrick" is not an absolute requirement or the sine qua non o f the existence of an "assigned wrecking crew"; and that the abser~e and removal o f the "wrecking derrick" was not found contractually to be the sole determinant which automaticall_ and instantaneously abolished an "assigned wrecking crew". In award No. 9014 this Board pointed out that the prior decisions were not found to be arbitrary or capricious so as to warrant reversal.
 Form 1 Award No. 9887
 Page 3 Docket No. 9766
 2-B&O-CM-'84
We shall sustain this claim for 7 hours for each of the three Claimants, but at the straight time or pro rata rate of pay.





                            By Order of Second Division


ATTEST
        Nancy . Dpfer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of May, 1984