Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope Rule, when it required or permitted Roadway Forces to perform signal work on October 24s 1978, at or near MP A-185.8, Dunn.. North Carolina.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer A. M. Essell, Wilson, North Carolina, six (6) hours at his time and one-half rate of pay."

 IGensMl Chairman file: 142- A M Eaell -78. Carrier rile: 15-1(79-3)
OPINION OF BOARD: There vas a derailment on October 23, 1978 which, among
 other things, caused damage to the signal cable. In
 the repair process, temporary cables were installed around the derailment.
 The signal cables were buried in a shallow ditch. The ditch vas dug pri
 marily by roadway employes who were in the area waiting to get to the track
 and perform track work. One signal maintainer assisted the roadway forces
 in digging the ditch and covering the cable. The other two maintainers
 were connecting the twists at each end of the derailment.

 The claimant, a signal maintainer, alleges that there vas: not a sufficient emergency with respect to this particular operation to authorise the Carrier to violate alleges it did when it used roadway forces to perform work which is within the jurisdiction of the signal maintainer; namely, the digging of the ditch and placing the cables therein. For this violation, the claimant seeks compensation for the si= hours which he lost as a result of not being called to duty when he vas available to perform this function.

 The Carrier justifies its actions basically on two points. One, that the work described is not exclusively the work of the signal maintainer. In this particular instance, communication lines were also being buried, and it is not that well established that this burying of these cables wuld necessarily be within the scope of the signal maintainer. The second defense is that because of the emergency circumstances it vas necessary


to move ptnaptly, and to do this, it used the forces which wore on hand. It knew that the claimant was not working at the tine, but intended to use' him the following he would be needed the following morning to continue the signal maintainer's work.

 We are aware of the awards which albs the Carrier latitude in the work assignments when there is an emergency which has to be resolved as soon as possible. We are aware, however, that this principle could be abused under some circumstances, and for that reason have reviewed very closely the record and the allegations in the submissions of the parties. There is no question but there is an emergency in the general sense resulting from a derailment. The claimant takes exception, however, to the degree of emergency, if any, as it applies to the burying of the temporary lines stating that the operation of the railroad was not dependent upon the lines being buried. It took the eight roadway men involved twenty-five minutes to perform the function. It is for that reason that a total of six hours is being claimed by the claimant. As a result of the action taken by the Carrier, the wires were out of the way and sate in less than an hour. Since the wires were only to be used temporarily, it would appear that there is no purpose served by burying the wires unless it was to insure that there would be no damage to them while they were being utilized.

 We find, after reviewing the facts, that the work performed was an essential part of the emergency repair of the derailment and must be condoned under the circumstances.

 Because of our decision with respect to this issue authorising the actions of the Carrier based upon the emergency circumstances, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the work is exclusively that of the signal maintainer.



That the Carrier and the Baployes 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



        Claim denied


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTE3T:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1981