(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way _11mployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Western Maryland Railway Company

                STAMEN'T OF CIALM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned junior trackcen to perform overtime service at Williamsport, Aaryland on August 17, 1975 instead of calling D. B, Welter who was senior, available and w,»ing to perform that se_--vice (System rile 75-11/8ir,-14 77) .

 (2) Trackman D. E. Weller be allowed twelve (12) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the aforesaid violation.

 OPETION CF BOARD: This case involves the same emergency situation
 .- which existed in Award No. 22013. In this case, however, Claimant who had a telephone in his house was not called to perform the emergency service. Instead, employes junior to him were called for said overtime work.

 Carrier advances the following arguments: (1) Claimant had not personally apprised his foreman of his home telephone number (2) Claimant failed to cite on the property any Agreement Rule which had been violated (3) Carrier was not required to search out a telephone number because an emergency existed.

        Our review of the record clearly indicates that Carrier's

assertion that no Agreement Rule was violated is a new issue. It
 was not cited on the property. This Board has consistently and
 emphatically held that it would not consider defenses which were
 raised for the first time at this appellate level. Third Division
 case law has impressively institutionalized this procedural standard.

 j:ile we recognize that in an emergency situation, Carrier has broad latitude in the assignment of e=loyes which permits bypassing of the no-anal procedures, w responsibility to sake a reasonable effort to call the senior employe.
                                                      i


                  Award Number 22014 ?'age 2

                  Docket Number iv-22o94


See Third Division Award No.'16346. The record herein shows that Claimant's number was listed in the local telephone directory. In our judgement, it would not have been unseasonable to have referred to that source before selecting a junior emoloye. Inasmch as this was not the case, we wilt sustain the claim.

        F'IJINGS: 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 1--roloyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Emplayes 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 violated.


                  A YI A R D .' ..


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ'USTt4Ei'T BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Z100,04ev &a~ Executive Secretary '


        Dated at Chicago, ---Iinois, this 14th day of April 1978.