NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-21102
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when, on July 15, 1973, it assigned
or otherwise permitted Arc Welder Fred Smith, Ass't. Roadmaster Abbey Rayle
and Trainmaster Decamp to repair a broken rail instead of calling and using
Section Laborers L. Holland and E. 0. Johnson for such service (System File
MW-FST-73-11).
(2) Section Laborers L. Holland and E. 0. Johnson each be allowed
eight (8) hours of pay at their time and one-half rates account of the violation described above.
OPINION OF BOARD: On Sunday July
15,
1973 Carrier used an Assistant Road-
master, a Maintenance of Way Welder, with some help from
a Trainmaster to repair a broken rail near Maple Grove, Ohio. Claimants are
regularly assigned Sectionmen headquartered at Maple Grove, who were on their
rest day on the Sunday in question.
Carrier alleges that there was an emergency on the day in question,
caused by the broken rail, which resulted in the delay of train service. Carrier asserts that it mad
from the Section headquarters at Maple Grove but was unsuccessful; only at
that point did Carrier resort to using supervisory personnel to correct the
emergency problem.
Petitioner asserts that Carrier, did not call Claimants on the day
in question and that there is no evidence that they indeed were called by
telephone that day. Hence, it is concluded that Carrier has not fulfilled
its obligation of making a reasonable effort to reach the two Claimants.
The record of this dispute discloses that during the handling on
the property no proof was submitted to support Carrier's contention that either
Claimant was called. The sole evidence was a letter from the Roadmaster which
stated: " ....every effort was made to call sec #21 people out to change the
rail. N=e responded to the call." It has been held repeatedly that Carrier
has the obligation to make a reasonable effort to communicate with employee in
situations analagous to that herein; Carrier acknowledged that responsibility
in this dispute. In many such cases in the past (primarily in non-emergency
situations) we have even held that one call was not sufficient to discharge
Carrier's obligation, (e.g. Awards 20119, 19658, 20466 and 20534). Third party
statements that "claimants were not readily available" are not supported by
the record on the property. Even with the broad latitude permitted Carrier in
Award Number 21222 Page 2
Docket Number MW-21102
an emergency situation, the obligation still persists to make a reasonable effort to call the employ
18425, 20109, 21090 and many others), prior to resorting to other expedients. Evidence of such effor
sustained as presented.
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 hoard has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive
&"141W
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1976.