(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE :
              (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


STAM=T 0F C;A724: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(1) The Agreement was violated when, on November 19,, 20, 26 and 27, 1977, an employe junior to Trac:=an K. R. Pegues was used to perform overtime service on Section Force 8031 (System File C-4(36) -KP/12-6(78-24) v)

 (2) Trackman K. R. Pegues shall be allowed thirty-six and one-half (36-1/2) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPISdION OF BOARD: Claimant, Trackman K. R. Pegues, was regularly assigned
 -- to Section Force 8031 at Monroe, North Carolina. This is approximately seventy miles from his residence.. During the period of the claim, Claimant was permitted by Carrier to work on Section 4030 which was located at Lilesville, North Carolina because of the work load on Section 8030 and because Section 8030 was located closer to Claimant's residence. This was approximately 33 miles from his home.

 On November 19, 20, 26 and 27, 1977 Carrier used employes who were junior to Claimant, and who were not regularly assigned to Section Force 8031, to perform overtime service. The Organization asserts that Claimant was available and willing to Carrier violated Rule 28, Work on Unassigned Days.

 Carriers on the other hail, insists that Claimant ,was not entitled to the work account he had never worked on section 8031. For this reason, it asserts that the Section Foreman of Force 8031 was never advised of Claimant's telephone number or of any way to contact Claimant.

 Carrier argues that on three of the claimed dates, November 20, 26 and 27, an emergency situation existed because of broken rails. Faced with the emergency situation, Carrier called the closest available employe.

 Further, terrier asserts that the Foreman of Section 8031 understood that Claimant was employed by an independent railroad contractor on the dates in question. Therefore, the Foreman determined that Claimant was not available.
                      Award :;amber 23853 ==g°-

                    Docket :,umber :Cd_21?25,


        Work on unassigned says is covered by Rule 28. It states:


        "Where work is required by the Carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of nay assignment, it ,:ay be performed by an available extra or unassigned employee who will not otherwise have 40 hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe."


A reading of this provision leaves little doubt that Claimant had a right to be called for the work. He was regularly assigned to Section Force 3031. The work to be performed was the regular work of that wag.

 Me fact that Claimant did not actually work on that Section is of no moment. After all, nothing is the plain language of Rule 28 makes the assignment of work dependent upon where the employe was working. Instead, it turns on an employe's assignment. If the parties intended such an interpretation they would have so indicated. They did not.

 Thus, Claimant, the regular assigned employe on force 9030 was entitled to be called.

 Carrier argued that Claimant was not available to perform the work. This contention is without merit.

 We have consistently held that a carrier must make a reasonable effort to contact an employe. See Awards 16279 and 20119. Normally we have required core than single attempt to contact the employe. (Award 2290'6). Here, the Foreman did not attempt a single call. We are simply not persuaded that a reasonable effort was made to obtain Claimant's number and to contact him. (See Award 22014).

 Carrier's argument that the Foreman "understood" that the Claimant was employed by an independent contractor at the time is also unpersuasive. There is no evidence to support the Foreman's belief. In facts the record indicates that Claimant was available for the days in question. As such, we must conclude that Claimant was available.
As far as the claimed dates, we see no reason why Claimant was not called on November 19th. The only work performed was ten (10) hours of unloading ballast. Cider no r emergency work. The work was scheduled in advance. Thus, the tine it might have taken Claimant to travel to the location is irrelevant.

 As to the other claimed dates, we note that part of the work on November 26th was spent unloading ballast. For this period of t-e, the same rationale underlying our reasoning regarding Vovember 19 applies.
                      Award -lumber 23853 Fa7,° 3

                      Docket iv;mlber ..__°r1-23250


The work performed on 'November 20 and 27 was repairing broken rails. Part of the time on P:ovember 26th was also spent repziring rails.

 Carrier argued that the work was emergency in nature, requiring that it call the closest available employe. 41e must conclude that an zn;.l;,·sis of these particular facts indicates that Carrier could not disregard the seniority principles of the Agreement.

 First, the evidence presented is insufficient to carry terrier's burden of establishing that an emergency situation existed at a11. There is nothing to suggest the location or significance of the broken rail. Clearly a broken rail, in itself, does not constitute an emergency. See Award 20310.

 Second, we note that Carrier called in other employes from great distances to perform the work. For example, Tra^l=an J . ;v . Robinson, who was regularly assigned to Section Force 8030, was called in even though he lived 55 miles from Monroe. :;e simply are not convinced that circumstances presented warrants calling in a man from a different gang when both had to travel such great distances. Stated simply, we are not persuaded that Carrier :.as met its bur-den of showing that it had sufficient basis for disregarding the principles of Rule 28.

        For all of the foregoing, we will sutain the c1aL as presented.


        FML^TGi: The Third Division of the Adjustrnent 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 violated.


                        A 41 A R D


        Claim sustained.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTJS'Z-=T BOARD

                                  By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjus~.ent Board

      ecmrie Erasch - Administrative Assistant


rh+A.~ a+ rv,; ra~c,_ Tllinois. this 28th day of April 1982.
 _~ a, ~'r

 i ~ Eli
      "' : '


1U --_ U

 lV- 7
      r , LJ /~


        :.