ass held that in an emergency Carrier may use other employes outside the Telegraphers' craft . . . .

In Award 6686, the Board, in rendering its decision, said:

"Thus we must examine the evidence in each case to see whether an emergency existed and what was the motivating cause of the Carrier's action in requiring employes to suspend work on their regular jobs. Here the evidence shows that the cause for such action was that the relief clerk at the Scranton Enginehouse reported off sick. We think that created an emergency."

In Award 6843, the Board defined an emergency as folows:

"When is an emergency created, or when does it exist? 'Sickness or accident, or some unforeseen occurrence that could not be anticipated' created an emergency."

Certainly in the instant case, the absence of an available and qualified extra employe to protect the temporary vacancy resulting from the resignation of H. B. Conkey created an emergency as defined above, in that it was an unforeseen occurrence that could not be anticipated. It is true that the Carrier had some five (5) days advance notice of Mr. Conkey's resignation; however, there was nothing that could be done to alleviate the situation except to increase the extra board by hiring a new telegraph service employe which, of course, is practically impossible on such short notice.

Admittedly, the motivating cause in the awards referred to by the Carrier is sickness; however, the Carrier wishes to point out that sickness in itself does not create an emergency. The emergency is present only when there are no extra employes available to protect the service. In other words, an emergency exists only when there are no extra employes available to protect temporary vacancies resulting from unforeseen occurrances such as sickness, resignations, accidents, etc.

In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully asserts that the claim of the employes, in the instant dispute, is entirely without support under the agreement rules and should either be dismissed or denied in its entirety.

The Carrier is uninformed as to the arguments the Employes will :advance in their ex parte submission and accordingly reserves the right to submit such additional facts, evidence or argument as it may conclude are required in replying to the Organization's ex parte submission or any subsequent oral or written arguments or briefs presented by the Organization in this dispute.

All that is contained herein is either known or available to the Employes or their respresentatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are not in dispute. Mr. B. F. Liebst, who was on a leave of absence resigned from Position 5015 effective July 19, 1955, the expiration date of his leave of absence. Position 5015 was advertised as a permanent vacancy on July 21, 1955, with bids closing on July 28, 1955. Mr. H. C. Humphrey, regularly assigned Telegrapher-Clerk to Position No. 1760 was the successful bidder and was assigned to Position No. 5015 on August 8, 1955.

In the meantime, Mr. H. B. Conkey, who was assigned to Position No. 5015 while Mr. Leibst was on leave of absence, notified the Carrier by letter dated July 29, 1955, that he was resigning effective at the close of work on August 7, 1955. This letter was received by the Carrier on August 2, 1955.

The vacancy on Telegrapher-Clerk Position No. 1760, occasioned by Mr. Humphrey's bidding in the vacancy of Position No. 5015 was advertised on July 30, 1955, with a closing date of August 6, 1955.

Mr. C. W. McCoy from the Telegraphers' extra board was the successful bidder to Position No. 1760. Mr. McCoy was also an extra dispatcher under the Dispatchers' Agreement. He was then working as a temporary dispatcher relieving other dispatchers during their vacation absences. He was so employed as a dispatcher between July 31 and August 19, 1955 and was, therefore, not immediately available to fill Position No. 1760.

Since there was no extra telegrapher available to temporarily fill Position No. 1760, Claimant, who was a Relief Operator on Position No. 9045, was taken off his Position and assigned to Position No. 1760, August 10 through August 18, 1955. August 8, 9, 15 and 16 were rest days of Position No. 1760 which Claimant worked on his regular assignment as Relief Operator on Position No. 9045.

On August 19, 1955, Extra Operator, L. E. Smith became available and was assigned to protect the vacancy on Position No. 1760, permitting Claimant to return to his regular assignment.

Claimant is asking for eight (8) hours at time and one-half in addition to the eight (8) hours he was paid for each of the following days: August 10, 13, 14 and 17, 1955.

The sole question is whether an "emergency" existed within the meaning and intent of Article X, Section 2-a. This Section says:

(1) The employe will be paid not less than a minimum of eight (8) hours for each day he is assigned to work on his assigned position.

(2) If the employe is required to perform work on the rest day of his own regular assignment, he shall be paid therefor at time and one-half rate.

(3) Payment for time worked on emergency position will be at the higher rate of the two positions involved.

(4) If the relief work is outside of the city in which his regular assignment is located, payment will be at pro rata for time worked within the hours of his own regular assignment and time and one-half for time worked outside the hours of his own regular assignment."

Claimant was paid in accordance with Article X, Section 2-a while assigned to Position No. 1760.

Employes contend that no emergency existed. The situation, they argue, was "caused by Carrier's short-sightedness in scheduling too many vacations at the same time." They emphasize "that it was not the relief for vacations of telegraphers that caused the difficulty; it was dispatchers' vacations that required the services of McCoy and thus caused the vacancy. The telegraphers have no control over or voice in scheduling of dispatchers' vacations."

The Agreement does not define "emergency". There are many definitions contained in Awards of this Board. None are all-inclusive and they cover many contingencies. In Award 7403 (Larkin) we said that emergency situations involve "acts of God, possible loss or damage to property, and other such emergencies beyond the control of the Carrier." (Emphasis ours.) We reviewed several previous definitions in Award 4354 (Robertson) which variously stated that an emergency "is suggestive of a sudden occasion; pressing necessity; strait, crisis. It implies a critical situation requiring immediate relief by whatever means at hand." (Emphasis ours.) In Award 10839 we adopted the definition in Webster's dictionary which says that an emergency "is an unforeseen combination of circumstances requiring immediate action."

It is evident that the resignation of Mr. B. F. Leibst followed by the resignation of Mr. H. B. Conkey started a chain of events which could not have been foreseen by the Carrier. The situation was a "pressing necessity" which required "immediate action."

Employes rely heavily on Award 2942 (Carter) where we held that: "A party cannot ordinarily assert his own negligence or want of foresight as an unavoidable emergency". Carrier maintained an extra board of sixteen (16) employes. There is no evidence in the record that this number was inadequate. On the contrary, the record shows that vacations were scheduled during each month of the year. The heavy months were January and April with 15 each; May with 16, and August with 17. Only June, July and November each showed fewer than 10 vacation schedules. Wherever possible, Carrier gave vacation preference to senior employes. The 1955 Vacation Schedule was approved by the Employes' Representative.

It has long been a practice that many employes maintain seniority status on both the Telegraphers and Dispatchers Seniority Rosters. Dispatchers positions are generally sought after because they pay a higher hourly rate; it is considered a promotion. This practice is not denied by the Employes.

From all of the evidence in the record, it is clear that an emergency did exist.

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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD