Without prejudice to or receding from its position that the claim of the Employes in the instant dispute is entirely without support under the Agreement rules and should be denied, the Carrier further asserts that Item (b) of the Employes' claim contemplating payment at "overtime rates of pay" is contrary to the well established principle consistently recognized and adhered to by the Board that the right to work is not the equivalent of work performed under the overtime and call rules of an Agreement. See Awards 4244, 4645, 4728, 4815, 5195, 5437. 5764, 5929, 5967 and many others.

All that is herein contained has been both known and available to the Employes and their representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On July 12, 1951, Carrier's Argentine Kansas Yards, including the Hump Retarder Yard, were inundated by a heavy flood. The Hump Retarder Yard was out of service from July 13 through August 6, 1951. As soon as the flood had receded Carrier assigned its forces to the necessary cleaning up operation. The two Signal Department employes who were regularly assigned to this location engaged in the cleaning and repairing of the retarders and signal equipment. They were assisted therein by a special force of signal extra gang employes sent from other locations on the property. Large amounts of overtime were worked by these Signal Department employes in connection with restoring the Hump Retarder Yard to operative condition. Carrier states that "in addition, a labor force was recruited, supplemented by every conceivable type of machine, truck or mechanical contrivance which could be transferred, borrowed, bought or used to dig out and remove the stench-ridden residue of the flood." (R., pp. 14-15)

After the operation of the Yard was resumed on August 7 the Signalmen continued their cleaning operations until December 10, 1951. They renovated retarder air cylinders, and cleaned switch assembles and the instrument and relay cases. It appears that after the Yard had been restored to working order there nevertheless remained certain residue which could not be removed by the cleaning methods utilized by Carrier's forces, which included a fire hose and water, brushes and other manual means.

Immediately after the flood crest had receded the Carrier obtained the services of the L. C. DeLong Company of Nebraska City, Nebraska to clean the buildings and facilities in the flooded area. DeLong used three oil-fired high pressure steam cleaners, operated by its own personnel, in this task. A strong commercial solvent was utilized with the cleaners. Carrier states the contractor was assigned first to clean those buildings and facilities which needed cleaning the most, with the result that it was not possible to bring the steam cleaners to the Hump Retarder Yard until October 22. From that date until about December 7, 1951 DeLong steam cleaned in and around the Retarder Yard, including the retarders, switch layouts, instrument cases, etc. On December 19, 1951 Organization's Local Chairman filed a claim that in permitting the contractor to clean signal equipment, car retarders, and their appurtenances and appliances, Carrier improperly removed work from the Signalmen's Agreement.

Carrier concedes its signal employes at the subject location "have rights to the normal cleaning procedures involving signal equipment, car retarders and their appurtenances and appliances." (R., p. 63) It contends, however, that the steam cleaning in question has not previously been recognized and is not now recognized as signal work. Organization asserts that cleaning of the equipment in question has been done by signal employes ever since this Yard was opened in 1949, that they had not done steam cleaning before since the

Yard had not previously experienced a flood, but that the Carrier could easily have used its own steam lines to perform the cleaning task in question.

We do not find merit in this claim. The services supplied by DeLong involved the use of special equipment not possessed by the Carrier. We cannot hold that Management was obligated to purchase such equipment solely for use in such an unforeseen emergency. Nor are we entitled to presume, on the basis of this record, that Carrier could have readily obtained equipment of this type on other than a purchase basis. Finally, the record does not enable us to conclude that the equipment already possessed by the Carrier could have satisfactorily performed the necessary cleaning work done by the outside contractor.

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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD