(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station ( Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Lehigh and Hudson River Railway Company ( John G. Troiano, Trustee

1. Carrier violated Article VII of Mediation Agreement Case No. A-8853, Sub. No. 1 dated February 21, 1971, when it abolished the position of Car Record Clerk, occupied by Warren L. Blakney on May 15, 1974 and that:

 2. Claimant Warren L. Blakney be compensated for all lost time at the pro rata rate from May 15, 1974 through May 31, 1974.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On May 8, 1974 the Penn-Central bridge at Pough
 keepsie, N.Y. was destroyed by fire, putting the
 bridge out of service. As of that date the Maybrook, N.Y. interchange
 was closed and the Penn Central instituted radically different routing
 via Carrier's interchange at Phillipsburg, N.J., which is currently
 the route. As a result of the change, Carrier claims that there was
 an immediate suspension of some of its operations and certain positions
 were abolished. On May 13, 1974 Carrier abolished Claimant's position
 effective May 15, 1974; the position was reinstated June 3, 1974. Car
 rier presented evidence of a reduction in traffic volume following the
 fire. The record indicates that during the period from May 15th to
 June 3, 1974 a Traffic Clerk was assigned half time to Claimant's work;
 the Traffic Clerk was retained to assist Claimant from June 3 to June
 17, 1974. Carrier stated that Claimant was recalled ". ..because the
 accounting work in his department had been allowed to back up during
 his absence, and not because there was a resumption of the earlier
 normal level of work."

 Petitioner states that there was no emergency since the fire would have to have occurred on Carrier's property rather than on Penn Central property to conform to the terms of the February 25, 1971 Agreement. It is argued that there the day of the fire, May 8, 1974. The reduction in the volume of traffic, it is argued, did not in i the position in question was abolished on May 15th it required formal advance notice - five days - in accordance with the normal reduction in force rule. However, it is concluded, since there was no contractual


basis for the job abolishment in the first instance, Claimant is entitled to compensation for all lo
Carrier asserts that the fire resulted in a suspension in part of its operations and clearly was an emergency condition as contemplated by the February 25, 19 there had been a previous force reduction as a result of a strike on the Penn Central, which paralleled the instant situation and was also an emergency. Carrier argues that the provisions of Article VII of the February 25, 1971 Agreement were expressly designed to afford relief to Carriers from emergencies such as that caused by the fire herein. Carrier argues that even if it sho improperly under Article VII, the Claimant would only be entitled to recover an amount that would have accrued to him had the normal five days notice been given him.



There have been a number of awards by various Divisions of the N.R.A.B. which have dealt with emergencies created by labor disputes on connecting lines or in some instances in other industries. In none of those situations did the Boards discount the emergencies since the work stoppages did not occur on the Carrier involved in the disputes. We see no reason to depart from the earlier reasoning since the prime consideration is the suspension of Carrier's operations in whole or in part as a result of the condition - in this case the fire.
                  Docket Number CL-20998


In this dispute the critical question is whether there was a suspension of Carrier's activities in whole or in part as a direct result of the fire. First we have were not abolished until a week after the fire took place. Secondly, the reduction in the traffic claimed as the major factor by Carrier was 17% for the month of May, 13% less than April in June, and down 44% after a seven month period. The traffic reduction has, according to Carrier, continued to the time of submission; can this be construed as a continuing emergency - or a reduction in business caused by a number of factors? Finally, the fact that the work load of Claimant apparently did not decrease during the to the incredulity. On balance, under the circumstances herein, we are not convinced that there was indeed an emergency coming under the provisions of Article VII supra. T chose to use a different interchange point, thus avoiding rebuilding or repairing the bridge damaged by the fire; this business decision of the connecting Carrier does not make for an emergency, even though it could result in a loss of traffic.

 Petitioner has alleged that the job should not have been abolished under any circumstances and C for the entire period. We can find no rule or other support for this position and it must be rejected. Therefore, we find that Claimant should be awarded compensation in such sum as would have accrued to him had the normal five day notice period been complied with by Carrier.

        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 the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the Agreement was violated.

                  Award Number 20996 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-20998

                  A W A R D


Part 1 of claim sustained; part 2 of claim sustained to the extent indicated above.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                ~~ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:rI/~, I1~,0
        xecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of March 1976.