(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Texas and Louisiana Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned junior Truck Driver Broussard to operate Heavy Duty Truck 1861 on Saturday, May 23 and Sunday, May 24, 1970 instead of Truck Driver J. C. Dugas who operates said truck during the w
(2) Truck Driver J. C. Dugas now be allowed fourteen (14) hours' pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, J. C. Dugas, and Truck Driver Broussard, on
 the claim dates, each held regular assignments as Road
 way Machine Operators, Heavy Duty Trucks. As between them Claimant had the
 greater seniority. The regularly assigned work week of each of them was,
 Monday through Friday, Saturdays and Sundays being rest days.

 Immediately prior to the claim dates Claimant drove heavy duty truck No. 1861 in the performance of his duties and had done so throughout a past period beginning when Carrier put truck No. 1861 in service.

 The Berwick Bay Drawbridge, Berwick, Louisiana, upon which Carrier's mainline trains operate, was st 1970. This resulted in the main line being out of service. A damaged span had to be replaced by a new one which was fabricated in several sections at Orange, Texas; and, beginning May 22, 1970, the sections were hauled from Orange to Berwick on Carrier's heavy duty trucks. The only truck-tractor and float combination that was long enough to handle the 43 foot load on Saturday May 23, 1970, was heavy duty truck No. 1861 which was at Lafayette, Louisiana the headquarters location of both Claimant and Broussard.

 On Saturday, May 23, 1970, Claimant drove heavy duty truck No. 1861 from 1:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M., a total of nine (9) hours for which he was compensated at the rate of time and one-half for work performed on his rest day. Then on the same date Carrier instructed Broussard, at 10:00 A.M., to drive heavy duty truck No. 1861 to Orange, Texas, at which point he was to take aboard a section of the span and related materials, deliver same to


        the location of Berwick Bay Drawbridge; and, having accomplished the delivery return to Lafayette headquarters. This he did. In the fullfilment of his instructions Brous May 23, 1970, and four (4) hours on Sunday, May 24, 1970, for which he was compensated at the rate of time and one-half for work performed on his rest days.


        The claim of Agreement violation is premised on allegations that since Claimant was senior to Broussard and "regularly" drove heavy duty truck No. 1861, he had a vested right to exclusive assignment to the operating of said truck; ergo, by application of Article 11 - THE 40 HOUR WEEK, Section 1(i), Carrier violated the Agreement when it instructed Broussard, instead of Claimant to the work performed by Broussard on May 23 and 24, 1970. The relied upon provision reads:


              "Work on Unassigned Days: Where work is required by the Carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available extra or unassigned employee who will otherwise not have forty (40) hours of work that wee all other cases by the regular employee."


        Should this position be upheld Claimant would have worked nineteen (19) hours on Saturday May 23, 1970, and four (4) hours on Sunday, May 24, 1970.


        The defenses proffered by Carrier are: (1) the foul-up of its main line at Berwick Bay Drawbridge created an emergency situation which in the absence of a contract bar justified it to remedy the situation, expeditiously, by assignment of the exercise of its judgment, saw fit; (2) if it had assigned Claimant to the work it would have violated ICC Order, Title 49, Transportation, Section 195.3; and, requirements demanded by the Louisiana State Police; and (3) heavy duty truck operators are not assigned to operate any specific truck.


        Upon consideration of the Record as a whole and the arguments of the parties we find: (1) Claimant was assigned to and held a position of Heavy Duty Truck Operator but not assigned to any particular vehicle used in the performance of work within tha foul-up of a main line is, ipso facto, an emergency situation; (4) Carrier was free to exercise its judgment in assignment of Heavy Duty Truck Operator employes and equipment to w which it was confronted to effect restoring service over the main line; (5) these findings dispose of the merits of the Claim without necessity of our reaching the number of other issues raised in the Record made on the property.


I i

 F
                Award Number 20381 Page 3

                Docket Number MW-19659


        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 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 Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ' Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of September 1974.