The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert U. 'lIcAllister when award was rendered.

1. That the P1issouri Pacific Railroad Company violated

Article VIT of Agreement of December 5, 1975 when they

used outside contractors goundmen at derailment site at

McCroy, Arkansas December 22, 1.921.

2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company ho ordered to

compensate Carmen ;l. E. Ison, N. Phillips, hl. T. Linz

and p. (i. Pruitt in the amount of five (5) hours each at

the punitive rate of ray.

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, 11pOT? the whole record and all the evidence, t i nc's that

The carrier or carriers and tie emnloye or emplayos in~,Yolved in this dispute are respectively carrier anc' emploves within the meaning of the Pallway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the c',ispute involved herein.

Parties to :;aid dispute waived right of ap;pparanct, at hearing thereon.

On December 2?, 1981, three of the Carrier's fr(,ifTht cars derailed at MrCroy, Arkansas. 'This is approximately sixty miLes northeast of Little Rock, the Claimants' headquarters. The Carrier Prlfaged the services of llulcher Emergency Services, headquartE~red at Pine Bluff, w!licli is forty miles from Little Rock and in the opposite direction from P(cCrov. The Organization asserts that Article VII of the December 5, L975, Agreement was violated because Hulcher performed groundwork at "-'cCroy and, in addition, they were suplemented by two carmen from Carrier's Newport facility.

The Carrier contends that flu lcher performed no groundwork, and the Organization's assertion is not supported by evidence of record. Secondly, Carrier argues that Article '%'Il does not require i t to transfer to a more distant wrecking crew such carmen's work as is necessary at derailments when such work, in the absence of a call ror the wrecker, has traditionally been performed by those carmen headquartored closest to the site of the derailment.

1. When pursuant to rules or practices, a carrier utilizes the equipment of a contractor (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 be called (with 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. Tire number of f`mployes assigned to the carrier's wrecking crew for purposes of this rule will he the number assigned as of the date of this Agreement."

Carrier a!so cites the following portion of Rule 105 as the language which, by Agreement, give-s it the right to use the carmen from Newport rather than carmen from Little Rock:

"When Wreck! nv crews are called for wrecks or ,derailments outside of yard limits, a sufficient number of the regularly assigned crew wi11 accompany the outfit."

Having reviewed the Carrier's argumonts concerning past practice and Rule 105 arc' submitted citations, the Board, at the outset, is constrained to declare that we fine! no ambiguity in Article VII of the December 5, 1975, Agreement. it contains three sentences plus a note dealing with the term "reasonably accessible." The first sentence involves the utilization of an outside contractor for wrecking service. If the Carrier chooses to use such a service, with or without its forces, than a sufficient number of the assignee! wreckingg crew will he called to work with the contractor if they are reasonably accessible to the wreck. The second sentence is a prohibition against use or the contractor's ground forces unless members of the assigned wrecking crew are called. Again, they must he reasonably accessible. Th", third sentence identifies the size or staffing of the wrecking crew as of the effective date of the 1975 Agreement. With respect to Rule 1115, contrary to the. interpretation Carrier wishes us to adopt, that rifle, as particularly cited, does not, when coupled to the first sentence of Article VTT, modify the Agreement so as to allow past practice to govern the subject of utilization of wrecking crew ground men. The use of the term "pursuant to rules or practices" refers to the use of an outside contractor which is further amplified by Rule 1.05 which does not mandate the use of Carrier's wrecker and crew for all derailments. The use of the phrase "pursuant to rules or practices" does not modify the clear and unambiguous language of Article VII dealing? exclusively with the subject of Carrier's assigned wrecking crew. See Second Division Awards Nos. 8284, 8161, and 80(,4.

The two carmen assigned to perform ground work with Hulcher are not assigned to a wrecking crew. With respect to the collateral issue of "reasonably accessible," we find the crew of the wrecker headquartered in Little Rock was accessible and available. Returning to the Organization's assertion that Hulcher ground forces were used at the derailment, this Board notes that the Carrier, in responding to the Organization on June 14, 1982, stated that '... Hulcher's laborers did not perform any carmen's work." This Is an implicit admission there were Hulcher ground forces at the scene, and the asserted denial they performed "carmen's work" is not supported by any material facts. The record shows that Ht1ICner arri~.Yed at approximately 10:00 A.M., and the last car was rerailed at about 1:00 P.M. Therefore, in accordance with the above findings, this Board will sustain the claim .`or three hours (10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.) at the straight time rate.

AWARD