Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27969
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27222
 89-3-86-3-297
 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:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when outside forces were used to repair the Martha Street Viaduct at Omaha on November 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1984 (System File M-101/013-210-49).

 (2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier did not give the General Chairman prior notification of its plan to assign said work to outside forces.

 (3) Because of the aforesaid violations, B&B Foreman R. T. Branting and Carpenters K. E. Boardman, J. D. Shepard, M. J. Lenihan and J. C. Wooten shall each be allowed thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3) hours of pay at their respective straight time 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.

On four days in November 1984, Carrier used employees of an outside contracting firm to repair a viaduct over its yard tracks in Omaha, Nebraska. The viaduct is the property of the City of Omaha but the Carrier is responsible for maintaining the pedestrian traffic. Notice to the Organization, as contemplated by Rule 52 of the Agreement, was not given.

 The Organization filed a Claim on behalf of five B&B employees for the equivalent number of hours worked by the contractor. Carrier has defended
 Form 1 Award No. 27969
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27222
 89-3-86-3-297

 against payment of the Claim on a variety of grounds. It argues that the structure is not owned by Carrier thus its Agreement with the Organization does not cover the work involved. It also argues that the work required in late November was emergency in nature and thus specifically excluded from the notice requirements of the Rule. Finally, it argues that all the Claimants were fully employed and if an Agreement violation occurred they would not be entitled to compensation in any event.

 Notwithstanding the niceties of which entity held legal title to the viaduct there can be no question, from the facts in this record, that Carrier was obligated to maintain the structure, which was used to facilitate the passage of vehicles and pe nature. A gaping six-foot hole surely suggests a requirement for immediate action to make the structure safe. Paragraph (c) of Rule 52 provides an exception to the notice requirement when the work is of an emergency nature. Under these circumstances the Agreement was not violated.




                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. e r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1989.