Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27700
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27223
89-3-86-3-298
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when Sectionmen D. R. Finch, J. W.
Miller and J. E. Asmussen were not called and used to perform overtime service
on their assigned territory (Hammer Section 6190) on February 23, 1985 and the
Carrier instead called and used sectionmen assigned to Glenna Ferry Section
6189 and King Hill Section 6184 for such service (System File M-133/013-21035).
(2) Messrs. D. R. Finch, J. W. Miller and J. E. Asmussen shall each
be allowed fourteen (14) hours of pay at their respective time and one-half
rates."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appeafance at hearing thereon.
At 1:00 AM on Saturday, :~bruazy 23, 1985, an Engineer on an Eastbound freight train reported wz
This location is within the territory of Section 6190. The Foreman for this
Section was ordered to the site to investigate the matter and noted that track
ballast was washing away by water entering-the right-of-way through on old culvert. He contacted the
Several Sectionmen from adjacent Sections 6184 and 6189 were called to come to
work and reported to the site within 45 minutes. They worke·i fourteen houvs,
at overtime rates, that day repairing the tracks. Claimants, who were assig.:--d temporarily to Sect
resided too far from the site of the problem and the Foreman needed assistance
from employees who could respond in the shortest amount of time.
Form 1 Award No. 27700
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27223
89-3-86-3-298
There is no question that the Agreement reserves to employees a
preferential right to perform the work of their assignments when it is required on an unassigned day
that when an emergency exists the Carrier may utilize extraordinary measures
in securing employees to undertake remedial action. Accordingly, was Carrier
justified in not attempting to call Claimants to report to the site of the
emergency?
Two of the Claimants reside 74 rail miles distance from the site of
the problem and one resided 120 rail miles away. These distances, on their
face, would seem to support Carrier's contention of unavailability. In some
of our other Awards we have ruled that Claimants that resided 65, 50, 47 and
as near as 33 miles from the trouble site were deemed to be unavailable.
In an attempt to minimize time delays inherent in the distance Claimants' would have had to trav
Organization points out that the employees used reported 45 minutes after
being notified and the driving time from two of the Claimants' residences to
the work site was but 45 minutes longer, ergo, an additional 45 minute delay
in arriving to work on a project that took 14 hours to complete would be
minimal.
This argument ignores the fact that the individuals used were at the
site 45 minutes after being notified. The interval between the time of notification and arrival at t
appropriately for work on a winter night as well as the time necessary to
travel to the site. On the other hand, the Claimant residing closest to the
work site would have needed an hour and 35 minutes just for driving time, if
he had operated his vehicle at legal limits on the interstate, to say nothing
of the one living the furthest away needing 2 hours and 18 minutes.
Accordingly, on this record we do not find an Agreement violation
when Carrier failed to call Claimants located 74 and 120 miles distant from
the site of the emergency for the work required to correct the situation.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:~,C4 .Nancy J ver·- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February 1989.