(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Cony:

 On behalf of Signalman Tobin C. Jackson for 16 hours at time and one-half and one hour double time account Rule 14(g) being violated when junior employee, Roger D. Lemaster, was called for overtime service on May 21, 1978, at 'F' Interlocking because of derailment." (Carrier file: 2-SG-554)

 OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute Claimant contends that Carrier violated
 Rule 14 (g) of the Signalmen's Agreement when it assigned Signalman Lemaster to perform overtime work on Sunday, May 21, 1978, as a result of a derailment at "F" Interlocking, Washington, D. C. Claimant argues that he was home that day prior to 3:00 P. M. but did not receive a call from Carrier official E. He asserts that as the senior employe in Regional Force 1734, he was entitled to this assignment pursuant to Rule 14(g). This Rule provides that:

Carrier, contrawise, contends that it called each employe assigned to Unit 1734 three times, including the Claimant, but was unable to reach any of them, except Signalman Lemaster, which was on the,fhird call. In view of this emergency, it asserts that prompt action was necessary to rectify the situation and thus assigning Signalman Lemaster to perform this work was consistent with its emergency powers and the ruling of this Board relative to emergency assignments.

emergency existed. The derailment at the "F" Interlocking location damaged a switch needed to route passenger trains into and out of the Washington, D. C. Terminal and immediate action was needed to permit movement of passenger trains.


While an emergency by definition would properly vest Carrier with a broader latitude of authority to deploy personnel in a manner conducive to the decisive resolution of the problem, we do not believe this to be the primary issue before us.

 Claimant argues that he was home on May 21, 1978 prior to 3:00 P. M. and did not receive a call. He submitted a notarized affidavit dated September 22, 1978 to attest to this assertion. Carrier contends that it called him at 8:15 A. M., 8:40 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and submitted a letter, dated December,13, 1978 which was signed by Supervisor Esworthy that said calls were made. There is no clear showing that either position is absolutely correct, although there is a strong presumption that the calls were made. In Third Division Award 21423 involving a conceptually similar dispute we held that:

        ". . the Board has no way of resolving evidentiary conflicts. We have neither the authority nor the competence to resolve such conflicts in the evidenc record. On the state of this record, the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the claim."


(See also Third Division Awards 20408 and 18871).

 We believe this decision is directly on point with the discernable facts herein and thus we must deny the claim.

        F LVINGS: 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.

                      Award Number 22920 Page 3

                      Docket Number SG-22994

                      A _X A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR


          . By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July 1980.