THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 7, 1966, a derailment on the branch line which runs between Columbia, Tennessee and Sheffield, Oklahoma, resulted in damage to a bridge near Rockdale, Tennessee, which is on the Birmingham Seniority District. The Carrier called a B&B crew, a Pile Driver crew and other employes from the Birmingham Seniority District as well as fourteen (14) B&B employes from the Nashville Seniority District to perform the work of repairing the bridge.
The assistant pile driver engineer on the aforementioned pile driver crew has established and holds a seniority date in that rank as of April 9, 1958. The claimant has established a seniority date in the same rank as of May 15, 1956.
The claimant, who works in a B&B crew when the pile driver is not in use, assisted in loading the necessary tools and material at Boyles to be transported to the bridge and, even though he was thereby available, willing and qualified to have performed the work involved, he was not called and given the opportunity to do so.
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled by the Employes at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
Subsequent correspondence was as shown by Carrier's attached Exhibits. AA through EE.
OPINION OF BOARD: On July 7, 1966, a derailment at Rockdale,. Tennessee damaged a bridge and required closing the line. Carrier notified three Birmingham Division employes working 17 miles north including B. L. Oldham,. an Assistant Pile Driver Engineer, to report to the bridge immediately. A Birmingham Division B&B gang working some 200 miles away was called to, the scene, stopping at Boyles where Claimant, an assistant pile driver engineer, assisted in loading necessary tools and materials being moved to the bridge. Claimant was not called to assist in the repair work, giving rise to the instant dispute.
Organization asserts that since seniority is by district, Claimant had a right to be called for the work involved before the junior assistant pile driver engineer. As a member of the Birmingham B&B group he was also entitled to be called before the Nashville Seniority District employes. Claimant was. available for assignment, his location was known to Carrier, and regardless of whether pile driver work was involved, Claimant should have been given thopportunity to work at the site of the derailment.
Carrier argues that inasmuch as Claimant is an assistant pile driver engineer and not working as a member of a B&B crew, he had no right to he called for this work as against Nashville Seniority District employes. It argues further that since the work to which the Assistant Pile Driver Engineer was called was not pile driving work but rather emergency cleanup and repair work, Carrier was authorized to pass the senior more distant Claimant.
The dispute before us involves Carrier's efforts to expedite clearing and repair of a bridge which was out of operation, interrupting passage of traffic. It is clear that this was an emergency situation.
It is clear also that Claimant was not at the time of this incident a member of the Birmingham Division B&B gang, although he had helped the gang load their equipment as they passed through Boyles. Since he was not a member of that gang he could not have been deprived of crew member work when the Carrier assigned work to a crew from a foreign seniority district. Claimant lacks standing to challenge the Carrier's assignment in this respect.
Turning to the question of whether Claimant had a prior right to be called to do the work for which Oldham was called, it is likely that a claim would lie under normal conditions when a senior employs was within reasonable proximity or when a specific skill is required. But here we have an emergency and a need for employes to clear the debris from the bridge. Carrier did not call Oldham in preference to Claimant to perform pile driving work. No pile driving work was contemplated or performed. Carrier acted reasonably in calling the nearest employes 17 miles distant. It was unreasonable to expect Carrier to refrain from commencement of work until Claimant was contacted and able to travel the 177 miles to the site of the wreck.
In this emergency Carrier must be held to have acted reasonably and in good faith.
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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and