The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

1. That the Maine Central Railroad Company (hereinaFter referred to as tile

Carrier) violated the provisions of the current Agreement and the

December 4, 1975 Mediation Agreement, namely Article VII, Captioned:

"Wrecking Service", on November 15 and 16, 1981, at the scene or a

rain-line derailment at i.ewiston, Maine.

2. That accordingly, the Carrier he ordered to compensate the regularly

assigned members of tile Waterville, ;Maine wrecking crew, namely Carmen:

E;. J. King, Jr., G. 0. Dickey, C. A. Hammonds, E. J. Laliberte, A. W.

Sears, Jr., N. J. Barney, and C. R. Philbrick, (hereinafter referred to

as the Claimants), at the applicable overtime rates of pay they would

have received had they boon dispatched to the scene of the derailment

at T,ewiston, 'Maine, on November 15 and 16, 1981, in compliance with the

above cited Agreement.

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 cmployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier sod employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The Claimants are regularly assigned members or the Carrier's Waterville, Maine, wrecking crew. The Carrier maintains two other wrecking crews on its property. They are hea0p»artered at South Portland 11(4 R, TI or, lai e.

On November 13, 1981, a derailment occurred at South Gardiner, Maine. The Claimant; were called to the scf,ne to work on the derailment on November 14 and 15, 1981. The Hulcher Emergency Service, an outside contractor, was also called to assist the Carrier with the derailment.

The Organization's position is that the Carrier violated Article VII of the December 4, 1975, agreement when it called in an outside contractor, llulcher Emergency Service, to perform wrecking work at Lewiston, Maine, on November 15, 1981, and failed to call the Claimants.

Article VII reads as follows:

"When pursuant to rules or practices, a Carrier utilizes the equipment of a contactor (with or without forces) for the performance of wrecking service, a sufficient number of the carrier's assigned wrecking crew, if reasonably accessible to the wreck, will he called (wi.th or without the Carrier's wrecking equipment and its operators) to work with the contractor. The contractor's ground forces will not he-used, however, unless all available and reasonably accessible members of the assigned wrecking crew are called. The niimher of employees assigned to the Carrier's wrecking crew for the purposes of this rile will be the TIUmher assigned as of the ,date of. this Agreement.

Note: In determining whether the Carrier's assigned wrecking crew is reasonably accessible to the wreck, it will he assumed that the groundmen of the wrecking; crew are called at approximately the same time as t1ie contractor is instructed to proceed to the work."

The Organization contends that the Waterville relief train crew should have been sent to Lewiston, Maine, to work with I?tilcher in compliance with Article VT[ since that crew was availablf- .end reasonably accessible to the derailment. The Organization cites awards holding that once a Carritr calls an outside contractor to perform wrecking service, it is under contractual ohligation, under Article VII, to call a sufficient number of its assigned wrecking crew to work with the contractor. The Organization contends that the "assigned wrecking crew" as referred to in Article VTT is the relief train crew and not employees who may ht- sent otit to rerai 1 derailed cars with ,jack:; , blocks, rep! acers , or other similar equipment.

For this alleged violation of Article VTI, the Organization seeks compensation for the regularly assigned members of the Waterville wrecking crew at the applicable overtime rates of pay they would have: received had they been sent to the Lewiston derailment on November 15 and 16, 1981.

The Carrier's position is that the use of Hulcher at the Lewiston derailment does not automatically require the presence and use of the wrecking crew. The Carrier contends that it complied with the requirements of Article VII of the agreement by utilizing "a sufficient number of Carrier's assigned crew" with an outside contractor by assigning the jacking crew to the Lewiston derailment.

Carrier further contends that it would have been Ludicrous to send the Waterville wrecking. crew to Lewiston, as they lead been at the Gardiner derailment for two days and would not have arrived at Lewiston until the jacking crew and Hulcher lead finished rvrailing the cars.

After reviewing the record in this case, it is the opinion of this Board that Article VII requires that the Carrier assign a sufficient number of its wrecking crew employees when it retains an outside contractor to perform a wrecking service. In the instant case, the Carrier was required by the rule to assign its own wrecking crew since it had employed the liulcher Company as a subcontractor.

Although the Carrier argues that the wrecking crew was not as accessible as

In previous awards of this Board, we have held that Article VII must be complied with by the carriers, and the carrier must utilize its own wrecking crew personnel when they are accessibiF. (See Second Division Awards 7837, 8064 and 8724).

The wracking crew in this case was reasonably accessible since tire Carrier sent the Hulcher Emergency Service to Lewiston, Maine to work on the derailment, and the Waterville relief train crew was available to proceed to the Lewiston derailment at the same time as the llulcher Emergency Service. The Claimants had completed their wrecking work at Gardiner and had arrived home at h:40 p.m. on ;~ovember 1 5 , 1981.

Consequently, this Board must sustain the claim and rind that the Claimants are to be made whole by being paid at the overtime rate that would have been in effect in November 1981 for the work that was performed by the Hulcher Emergency Service between 8:40 p.m. on November 15, 79131, and 2:3() a.m. on November 166, 1981.

A !; !1 R i)