The Board's attention is directed to Awards 1493, 1494, 1520, and 1522. The carrier submits that the principles and interpretations established by Awards 1493, 1494, 1520 and 1522 are proper and based on the clear and unambiguous language of the rule and by applying those principles and interpretations to the instant case the conclusion is inescapable that to sustain the interpretation requested by the petitioner in the instant case would violate the specific language of Rule 10.

CONCLUSION

The carrier having completely established that it properly compensated the claimant for service performed at Hackamore during the period March 1 to 6, 1940, respectfully asserts that it is incumbent upon the Board to deny the alleged claim in the instant case.

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a case of service performed in a telegraph office which had been closed for sometime prior to the dates when services were performed therein, and in that respect differs from TE-2281. What we have said in TE-2281, however, applies with greater force to the instant case.

The facts are that due to washouts (caused by torrential rains) between Gerber and Dunsmuir, the Carrier's line between said points was inoperative from February 27th to March 5th, 1940 during which time traffic normally handled between Sacramento and glamath Falls, via Gerber and Dunsmuir, was routed via the Ogden route and Modoc Line through Fernley and Alturas. In order to handle the increased volume of traffic on the Modoc Line during the time the line between Gerber and Dunsmuir was out of service, it was necessary to establish temporarily a continuously operated telegraph office at Hackamore and assign three telegraphers thereto, one of whom was the Claimant. He was released when the Gerber-Dunsmuir Line was reopened.

In addition to the awards referred to in TE-2281, we have the following awards, based on similar facts as are found in this docket: Award 84, Referee Samuell-

"While it is true that the Farthing Station was not actually within the boundaries of the washout territory, yet it was for all practical and reasonable purposes at the washout. The construction or interpretation placed on the language of Rule 19 by the Carrier is too strict."

(The station is on the Colorado & Southern Railway Co., 3%z miles from the washout, and Rule 19 that prevailed there is similar to Rule 10 of the Southern Pacific Lines with which we are concerned.)

The award was rendered September 13, 1935, and three days later the Division, without a referee, sustained the second claim for the same service performed at the same place and at the same time as the service involved in Award 84, thereby adhering to the above award.

Award 270, Referee Hotchkiss, in a similar case as Awards 84 and 89, similar set of facts and similar rule involving employes on the Illinois Central Railroad, said:

"The referee finds that the emergency service which the employes in this case were called upon to perform was necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and to the discharge of obligations which it had assumed under its agreement with other lines."

Award 395, Referee Sharfman (a case of a closed telegraph office reopened temporarily) : The pertinent portion of the Opinion appears in TE-2281. We repeat the quotation,

"There is no denial that the office at Flanigan was an emergency office, nor that slides which are obviously similar to derailments and washouts were the effective cause of the derailment. * * * No require-

menu as to the locus of the slides or as to interruption of traffic are stipulated in the rule as conditions of its applicability. The essential element which provides opportunity for the service and compensation at issue, is the emergency office. * * * Nor is there any merit to the contention that the office must be located at the exact point of the derailment, washout or similar difficulty. * * * Practical demands of the situation must govern with respect to the place chosen for emergency operation; and since the office here involved was located at the nearest junction point at which the Western Pacific trains might be detoured and emergency telegraph service was required, the causal connection between the slides and emergency office was not broken in any way."

In argument for the Carrier it is pointed out that the opinion states there was no denial that the office was an emergency office. The record discloses, however, that the Carrier did deny in its submission that the office was an emergency office due to flood conditions and took the position the service was to handle increased traffic indirectly due to the washout, which had occurred on another line, some distance of 91 to 111.9 miles away from the location of the office. The Carrier also contended that the office had to be at the scene of the trouble. The statement of "no denial" in the Opinion is the statement of a finding by the Referee and not of a conceded fact by the Carrier. The claim was sustained. This is a Southern Pacific case, as are all others that follow this award, and Rule 10 is involved in all of them.

Though the claim was denied in Award 923, Referee Swacker, on the grounds stated in TE-2281, we find in the Opinion the following:

"We cannot, however, agree with Carrier's contention that an emergency office to be such must be located at or immediately adjacent to the blockade. It may be far removed, but it is an office operated anywhere, temporarily, for the purpose of caring for resulting conditions, which otherwise would not have been opened."

Award 1323, Referee Rudolph, is a case of a temporary office being opened and we have cited and quoted from the Opinion in TE-2281. We will not repeat but simply make reference to it and embody the quotation in that docket as part of this Opinion.

The Opinion in Docket TE-22,81, and this Opinion, embody all of the principles upon which our conclusion is based, and govern the records in the following Dockets: TE-2284, TE-2285, TE-2286, TE-2287, TE-2288, TE-2333, TE-2334, TE-2335 and TE-2336. We have examined all of the facts in them, and where there is any substantial difference in the situation, we have noted it. None, however, are found to be sufficiently distinguishing as to warrant a different result. Excerpts cited in our Opinions in these two key cases, TE-2281 and this one, effectively answer and refute all of the arguments and contentions advanced by and on behalf of the Carrier.

We might add, for further clarity, bearing in mind other dockets submitted herewith, that distance from the office to the territory where the trouble occurred, the number of men regularly employed at regular open stations and the difference in rates of pay as between regular and extra men at stations, do not affect the result. This is made clear in the excerpts from Opinions quoted in this Award and in Docket TE-2281.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD