When pursuant to rules or practices, a carriers 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 be used, however,unless all available and reasonably accessible members of the assigned wrecking crew are called. The number of employees assigned to the carrier's wrecking crew for purposes of this rule will be the number 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 be assumed that the groundmen of the wrecking crew are called at approximately the same time as the contractor is instructed to proceed to the work."

The Organization states that it is undisputed that the Carrier had first determined that eight (8) groundmen would be the number of assigned crew members for this derailment and that it has been the past practice to use two (2) Carmen for each piece of equipment that the contractor uses; that the four (4) Claimants who were relieved and sent home should have been treated the same as the other members of the crew; and that this is especially true since the contractor used eight (8) groundmen and only four (4) Carmen were used. The Organization argues that the purpose of the Agreement was to assure that employees of the Carmen's Craft who hold regular assigned wrecking crew positions would be utilized in wrecking service under certain specified conditions such as have been met in this instance. The organization further argues that as more than one wrecker service was utilized, the Carrier was obligated to call a crew containing a number of wrecking crew members sufficient to perform the wrecking service work. In support of its position, the Organization refers this Board to it decision in Second Division Award 9091. In that Award, this Board held that:

"However, we conclude the requirements of Article VII are triggered each time the Carrier calls an outside contractor. Thus, when the Carrier calls a second contractor, it is obligated to call a second assigned wrecking crew provided the crew is reasonably accessible and the crew members are available. Maintaining a one to one ratio of contractors to assigned wrecking crews is the most reasonable and pragmatic interpretation of the Article VII language."

The Organization further states that when the extra groundmen were called to this derailment with the derrick, they became part of the regular assigned wrecking crew for all practical purposes in this claim.

The Organization concludes by stating that because of the Carrier's violation of the Agreement, as noted, the Claimants in this dispute are entitled to be made whole as per the Claim of the Employees.

The Carrier contends that the Agreement was not violated. It states that it called the derrick and the contractor's two mobile cranes to clear the mainline derailment; that it used all available and reasonably accessible members of the assigned wrecking crew at the derailment site as required by Article VII of the December 4, 1975 Agreement; that it then chose to send four additional Carmen to assist the derrick and cranes; and that the derrick, two mobile cranes and four additional Carmen were relieved upon the arrival of Hulcher Services.

This Board has held in Award 9091 that since Article VII contains no express or implied prohibition against the use of more than one outside contractor, the Carrier may, as it did here, call two contractors, However, the requirements of Article VII are triggered each time the Carrier calls an outside contractor thereby obliging it to call a second assigned wrecking crew provided the crew is reasonably accessible and the crew members are available. This Board holds now as it did then that maintaining a one to one ratio of contractors to assigned wrecking crews is the most reasonable and pragmatic interpretation of Article VII. Additionally, Rule 135 states that sufficient Carmen will be called to perform the work. Rule 135 specifically applies to the situation in this case. This Board adheres to its decision in Second Division Award 9138 where we stated that to permit the Carrier to go outside and hire whoever it chooses to supplement that crew and disregard the Carmen employed at the location, could render Rule 135 meaningless when carried to its ultimate conclusion.

In this case, the contractor utilized eight (8) groundmen for this operation and the only Carmen used were the four (4) regular assigned groundmen. AS the Carrier failed to meet its obligation and assign a sufficient number of employees to work with the contractors, the Board finds that the Carrier is in violation of Article VII of the Agreement.

AWARD