heretofore been submitted in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of this dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in the claim before the Board are as follows: Line 6551, Philadelphia-Pittsburgh, as shown on the Operation of Conductors Form, is a 3-man operation, PRR trains 635-55, 60-602, Conductors report Philadelphia, 8:45 P. M. (first day) and are released from duty in Pittsburgh, 7:20 A. M. (second day). They report at Pittsburgh 8:15 P. M. the same day and are released, from duty, in Philadelphia, 7:30 A. M. (third day). Outbound, PRR trains 635-55 carry 5 Pullman cars, 3 New YorkChicago cars, 2 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh cars. Inbound, PRR train 60-602 carries 11 Pullman cars, except on Friday when the train carries 8 Pullman cars. Outbound, between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, a Chicago District conductor is also on the train, in charge of cars of Line 6517. The same situation exists inbound, between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, the Chicago District conductor who operates Line 6517 and the Philadelphia District conductor on Line 6551. The Philadelphia conductor in Line 6551, is the only conductor on PRR 602, Harrisburg, Philadelphia.

On June 29, 1960, Conductor O. H. Wentz, Philadelphia District who regularly operated in Line 6551, was en route Pittsburgh-Philadelphia on PRR train 602. Wentz was removed from his assignment, between Johnstown and Altoona, Pa., on account of being in an unsatisfactory physical condition, by the Passenger Train Master of the Pennsylvania Railroad. This action left PRR train 602 without a Pullman conductor between Harrisburg-Philadelphia. In a telephone conversation between the Pullman Night Agent and the Passenger Train Master it was arranged that in the emergency Philadelphia District Conductor R. L. Ferguson, one of the three conductors regularly assigned in Line 6551, who was en route to Pittsburgh on PRR train 635, having left Philadlephia the evening of June 28, would be detrained at Harrisburgh and would be placed on PRR train 602. Upon his arrival at Harrisburgh 12:10 A. M., June 29, Conductor Ferguson detrained from PRR train 635 and handled the cars on train 602 Harrisburgh-Philadelphia. The Pullman cars which Conductor Ferguson was in charge of on PER train 635 were handled to destination (Pittsburgh) by the Chicago District Pullman conductor who was in charge of the other cars on the same train.

The issue, as set forth by the Organization "Did the Company violate Rules 25 and 61 when, on June 29, 1960, it blanked Conductor Ferguson's assignment on PRE, train 55 between Harrisburgh and Pittsburgh?"

The Organization claims the pertinent parts of the Rules involved are as follows:

"RULE 25. Basic Seniority Rights and Date. (a) The seniority of a conductor, which is understood in this agreement to mean his years of continuous service .from the date last employed, shall be confined to the district where his name appears on the seniority roster.

"(b) No deductions shall be made from the seniority of conductors for time spent on authorized leaves of absence, furloughs, or sickness.

"(c) In any district, the right to perform all Pullman conductors' work arising therein, as established by past practice and custom,

shall belong exclusively to the conductors having seniority in such district, subject to the exceptions of these rules herein otherwise contained."

"RULE 15. Layovers in Regular Assignment. Specific layovers shall be prescribed in operating schedules for regular assignments."

"RULE 61. Posting 'Operation of Conductors Form' (Form 93.126), shall be posted in places accessible to those affected and a copy of each such form shall be furnished to the General Chairman of the Organization at the time posted. A run covered by an 'Operation of Conductors Form' (form 93.126) shall remain in effect until canceled by Bulletin."

"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR WAGE LOSS.

* * - Similarly, it is understood that if a Pullman conductor presents a claim that he was not given an assignment to which he was entitled under the applicable rules of the Agreement, effective September 21, 1957, and that claim is sustained, he shall be paid for the trip he lost in addition to all other earnings for the month."

"RULE 36. Continuance in Regular Assignment.

"A conductor operating in regular assignment shall not be used in service outside his assignment except in emergency and as provided in paragraph (d) of Rule 38.

"Q-1. May a conductor who is operating in regular assignment, who has missed his return trip at his opposite terminal, be used in service toward his home terminal as provided in Rule 38?

"A-1. Yes, provided the uniform release time has expired. However, he shall not be used in a regular assignment operated by the away-from-home district.

"Q-2. Shall a conductor who is operating in regular assignment, who arrives at his opposite terminal after the scheduled reporting time for his return (inbound) trip, be permitted to return in his regular assignment?

"A-2. Yes, provided the uniform release time for the outbound trip expires before departure of his train.

"Q-3. May a conductor who is operating in regular assignment be used out of his assignment at his opposite terminal on a train departing before his specified layover expires?

"A-3. No, except in an emergency."

The Company also cites Rule 9. Held for Service, which requires the Company to pay a regular conductor 6:50 hours for each 24 hour period, following his return to his home station when he is used outside his regular assignment. Conductor Ferguson was paid in conformance with Rule 9.

The fundamental issue in this case seems to be whether or not an emergency existed. If an emergency existed then the Company did not violate Rules 24 and 61, but if no emergency existed then the Organization's position is tenable.

The Organization does not agree with the Company's interpretation of Rule 36. They say-"We do agree that a regularly-assigned conductor may be used outside of his assignment under certain conditions. However, it does not mean that the Company has a right to remove a regularly-assigned conductor from his assignment, thus creating another emergency."

The Company had only two alternatives in the emergency:

1. It could have permitted train 602 to continue on, Harrisburgh to Philadelphia, without the services of any conductor.

2. Remove Claimant from his assignment at Harrisburgh, and use him to protect the cars in service on train 602, Harrisburgh to Philadelphia, permitting the cars on train 635, which were in the Claimant's charge, to be handled by a conductor who was in charge of other cars on the same train.

In either event the Company would be exposed to a claim. If the Company had chosen the first alternative, rather than the second, the Organization could advance a claim that Rule 64 was violated, on the basis that more than one Pullman car was in service without a conductor.

It is our belief that the Company, in an emergency situation, has a broader latitude for judgment than it ordinarily possesses. See Awards 9394 (Hornbeck), 5766 (Smith), 10181 (Daley).

We find nothing vague or unique in the language of Rule 36. We confirm the statement in Award 9198 (Weston) "As this Board many times has had occasion to hold, we are required to apply the rules as they have been written * * * and we have no authority to add to or supplement these obligations by interpretation or otherwise."

We hold that Rule 36 does apply in this case, that an emergency did exist. This being our conclusion, then we must find Rule 24 and Rule 61 were not violated.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD