(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company that:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the Agreement between the Company and t by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) and particularly the first paragraph of Rule 25, which resulted in violation of Rule 70, when it refused to reimburse Mr. Blanchette and Mr. Ashcraft for meals purchased at Tiptop, California, on March 10, 1970.
submitted on Form C.S. 148; Mr. C. H. Ashcraft be reimbursed the amount of
 $2.52 as submitted _on Form C.S. 148 for March _1970.
 /Carrier's File: SIG 108-43/









        The claimants are signal employees. On March 10, 1970, after their completion of the day's work, their foreman received a call from Ducor, about 43 miles away, to proceed there, immediately, to fix a pole which was demolished as a result of being struck by an automobile.


        Af:er fixing the pole, claimant's proceeded back to their station in Tulare, but on the way, they ate dinner, and now request payment for the dinner expenses pursuant to the provisions of Rule 25.


        The carrier refused to honor the claim on the ground, that the work involved, is not of an emergency type as contemplated by Rule 25.


        The first issue involved here is whether the work of replacing the pole was an emergency or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, another issue arises: does the phrase, "meals and lodging", intend that they moat occur together and if one of the elements is missing, is the carrier not liable for either?


        Webster, defines emergency as "an unforeseen situation calling for immediate action" (Webster's New American Dictionary). The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955) defines emergency as "The sudden or unexpected occurrence (of a state of things, etc.); a sudden occasion".


        We can not agree with the carrier that Rule 25 is limited to derailments, washouts, snow blockad phrase "such as" would have been superfluous. The inclusion of that phrase makes the intent of the Rulc clear and unambiguous. It intends to apply not only to emergencies listed, but also to others of similar nature.


        The destruction of the pole and the line it carried was certainly an "unforeseen situation." If it were not "immediately" repaired, it could have interfered with the operation of the trains, as much as any of those emergencies actually listed in Rule 25. The mere fact that the signal supervisor instructed the sign that at least, is his mind, this was a situation requiring immediate action, and thus, was an emergency.


        The organization in its rebuttal statement said: "There can be no question but that the automobile accident suddenly disrupted Carrier's signal system and it was necessary (that) the system be restored to operation without delay". The factual situation here is ouch, that it became incumbent upon the carrier, which denied "emergency",to prove it was not. The burden of proof shifted to the carrier in this respect. It was the only one that could prove whether the destruction of the pole was, or was not, an emergency, needing immediate repair.


. j

 <. ;-`~'·:FY<
                            Award Number 19755 Page 3

                            Docket Number SG-19491


          The cases cited by the carrier are not directly in point and do not answer this question.


          Absent proof to the contrary, we must assume that the destruction of the pole and signal line was one of the emergencies contemplated by the Rule.


          The subsidiary issue raised by the carrier, to wit: that the Rule contemplates both meals and lodgings, and one may not be honored without the other, must be rejected, as not intended. We do not believe, that the parties intended to deprive an employee of a meal if he was called upon to work in an emergency, unless he stayed away from his site of operations and also used lodgings. This question, in our opinion, must be answered in the negative.


          Award No. 18971 is not in point. There, the rule about meals and lodgings applied only to cases "when employees are unable to return to their headquarters on any day". There we found that they did return to their headquarters and the rule did situations where employees are unable to return to headquarters.


                FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


                That the parties waived oral hearing;


          That the Carrier and the Employer involved 1n this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer 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


                The employer violated the provision of Rule 25.


                            A W A R D


                Claim is sustained.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


          ATTEST:

                Executive Secre ary


          Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973.


.,...