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

On December 16, 1991, the Cumberland Tool Car Crew, consisting of one contract Supervisor and one Groundman, were utilized by the Carrier to work on a derailment at Harpers Ferry. In addition, five other Carmen from the extra list were called. These seven employees worked with an outside contractor at the wreck site.

The Organization's contention is that the Carrier violated Rule 142' when it failed to call 16 employees, which was "the number of employees assigned to the Carrier's wrecking crew ...as of the date of this Agreement." Rule 1421A reads in pertinent part as follows:

"Wrecking Service

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 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 ...."

The issue raised by the Organization has been resolved many times through previous Awards, most notably in Second Division Award 12735, involving the same parties. Award 12735, which was adopted on September 13, 1994, concluded as follows:

"In the instant case, the Carrier called all available members of the assigned wrecking crew and they worked the derailment. In prior Awards between these same parties on this property, this Board held that the Rule obligates the Carrier to call all assigned members of the wrecking crew before using an outside contract---, but 'does not cover relief wrecking crew carmen inasmu--h as they are not designated as members of the Carrier's assigned wrecking crew' (Second Division Awards 9149, 9095, 8679). Due to the fact that it cannot be demonstrated with the existing record of evidence that the Carrier failed to utilize a `sufficient' number of the assigned wrecking crew or that the Claimants were proper claimants, the Claim must be denied."

As to the diminution through attrition of the regularly assigned wrecking crew and its present status having fewer members than "assigned as of the date of this Agreement," denial Awards have been consistent despite this circumstance. It remains for the Carrier and the organization to resolve this apparent contradiction.

As to the Organization's request that the Carrier be ordered to "advertise" the "fourteen (14) vacant positions," this is clearly beyond the Board's jurisdiction, even if the facts justified such a step.

AWARD