NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number W-22971
Martin F. Scheinman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE;
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM; "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that;
(1) The Agreement was violated when Trackman J. L. Gilpin was
not called to perform overtime service on his assigned section territory
(Section 33-Garnett) on September 14, 1977 and the Carrier instead called
and used a trackman assigned to the Ottawa Section for such service
(System File 4-0-53-4/11-1580-220-143).
(2) Trackman J. L. Gilpin be allowed two (2) hours and forty (40)
minutes of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation
referred to in Part (1) hereof."
OPINION OF BOARD: On September 14, 1977, a derailment occurred at a public
road crossing at Princeton, Kansas. As a result, a
Trackman was needed to inspect and make necessary repairs at the derailment.
Since the derailment was within the working limits of Section 33, Garnett,
Kansas, the Chief Dispatcher attempted to contact the Foreman of this section.
The Chief Dispatcher was advised that the regularly assigned Foreman was on
vacation.
He then attempted
to contact the Relief Foreman; but he was also
unavailable. Section Foreman Houdashelt at Ottawa, Kansas was then called
to handle the assignment. Houdashelt called one of his own Trackmen to
inspect and make the repairs at the derailment.
The Organization contends that Claimant J. L. Gilpin, a trackman
assigned to Section Gang 433, should have been called to perform the overtime
services since the disputed work is
within the
assigned working limits of
Section Gang x/33. The Organization argues that the work belonged to Claimant
who was available and fully qualified to perform the work pursuant to
Article II, Establishment of Seniority.
After careful analysis of the evidence introduced on the property
as well as the submissions to this Board, we conclude that Carrier's contentions are more convincing
Award Number 22948 Page 2
It is clear that the work in question needed to be handled quickly.
The situation can best be described as urg- ent. Carrier attempted to contact
the Section Foreman as was required. When the Chief Dispatcher found the
Foreman on vacation he sought the relief Foreman. This attempt to locate
the appropriate foreman was also unsuccessful.
Section Foreman Houdashelt was then called to handle the situation.
Houdashelt, faced with the need for an immediate response understandably
reached for a familiar man - one of his own trackman. In this way he
assured a prompt response to the urgent situation he found himself confronted
with.
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Houdashelt knew
or could have reasonably known that Claimant should have been called.
Houdashelt did not have Claimant's name or phone number.
In short, on the facts presented here, a unique and urgent situation
- we must conclude that Carrier did not violate the Agreement when it failed
to call Claimant to perform the work.
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 15th day of August 1980.