Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29049
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28743
 91-3-89-3-131
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claiia on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother-
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC (WL)):

 On behalf of: Signal Foreman; M.T. King Signlman; S. A. Kusanovich, Signal gang #1 headquartered at Salinas, Ca. Signal Foreman; C. Pando Ld. Signalman; D. T. Obedoza Signalman; J.C. Holmes Signalman; J. T. Braddock Signalman; J.R. Rivera, Signal gang #2 headquartered at Santa Clara, Ca. All these men are from Coast Seniority District. Claiming 24 bra. at straight time rate, and 11 bra. at over time rate per each man for January 14, 15, 18, 1988.

 This claim is also for: Signal Foreman; M. T. King Signalman; S.A. Kusanovich, Signal gang #1 Signal Foreman; J. J. Gonzalez, Signal gang #6 headquartered at Bayshore, Ca. Signalman; J.T. Braddock Signalman; J. R. Rivera, Signal gang #2 Signal Maintainer; A. L. Lawrence, headquartered at Gilroy, Ca. These men are also from Coast Seniority District. Claiming 23 hrs. at over time rate per each man for January 16, 17, 1988.

 The Southern Pacific Co. violated rule #37 of the Signalman agreement by using the Niles Signal gang #3 and the Oakland gang #4, both from Western Seniority District to perform signal work on GMO 82504 (A8025) Mile Post E-84.0 at Galroy on the Coast Seniority District."

 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 29049
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28743
 91-3-89-3-131
 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute involved herein.

The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Scheduled Agreement, particularly Rule 37, w employees in the Niles Signal Gang No. 3 and the Oakland Signal Gang No. 4 to perform signal work on CMO 82504 (A8075) at Mile Post E. 84.0 at or near Gilroy, California, on the Coast Seniority District on January 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, January 1988. Rule 37 Seniority Restrictions reads:

Rule 38 Change in Seniority Districts reads:

Specifically, the Organization maintains that by using off-division employees, that is, other than Coast Seniority District employees to perform this work and absent the defining circumstances that would warrant the application of Appendix G, and absent evidence that would clearly establish an emergency existed, Carrier violated Article 37. In other words, neither of the Signal Gangs directed to perform this work was assigned to outfit cars and Carrier failed to meet its proof burden when asserting an affirmative defense.

 In response, Carrier contends that an emergency existed and accordingly under such circumstances forces. It notes that the Santa Clara Signal Gang No. 2 was just completing a two week project, working twelve hours per day, seven days per week, and further notes that the Local Chairmen were notified the two Western Division Gangs would be used. In its March 7, 1988 denial letter, Carrier set forth in detail the nature and dimension of the problem and the specific work tasks that were performed. More pointedly and contrary to the Organization's position that on the afternoo service, Carrier asserts that the emergency existed until January 18, 1988. The pertinent portions of the March 7, 1988 letter are set forth as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 29049
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-28743
 91-3-89-3-131
 At about 5:00 p.m., January 13, 1988, a flat-bed
 pickup truck hit the PG&E high voltage tower and
 removed two of its support legs at about M.P. E-83.7.
 The 100,000 volt power line (6 wires) fell across the
 signal pole line and obstructed the westbound main
 line. By daylight, the morning of January 14th, PG&E
 had all the AC power turned off. We could now start
 to make repairs. PG&E moved their tower in the
 clear.
 hbout 1,2CC `a~i of signal pole line was gone. All
 the train signals in both directions were at stop.
 The Signal employees who were present all night had
 to be rested.
 Santa Clara Signal Gang fl2 was working in King City
 on GMO-66714, Short Street, San Ardo, E-182.65. They
 had been there for two weeks, working 12 hours per
 day, 7 days per week. On Thursday, January 14th,
 they were to complete the project, load the trailer
 by quitting time, so they could return to Santa Clara
 on Friday, January 15th. Their work shift, while on
 this project, was 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
 By the time it was determined what our damages were,
 it would have been at least 11:00 a.m. before we
 could contact the Santa Clara Signal Gang; therefore,
 Signal Supervisor R. McCoy made the decision to use
 the West Oakland and Niles Signal Gangs and all other
 signal maintainers, foremen and signalmen that worked
 close to the problem spot.
 Division was directed by the Signal Engineer to use
 Appendix G Memorandum of Agreement between Southern
 Pacific Transportation Company and the Employees of
 the Signal Department, that part reading:
 'The seniority of all employees in such gangs is
 restricted to their home division; therefore, it
 is mutually agreed that:
 1. (a) When a gang is to be transferred from its
 home division for service on another di
 vision (other than in an emergency), the
 members of the gang to be transferred
 shall be given at least thirty-six (36)
 hours advance notice and shall have the
 election of either accompanying the gang
 or exercising their seniority under the
 provision of Rule 43 of the current
 agreement.'
 Form 1 Award No. 29049
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-28743
 91-3-89-3-131
 Both local chairmen were notified of our intentions
 to use the two Western Division gangs.
 After loading the repair material the Niles crew
 arrived at Carnadero at about 9:00 a.m. and the
 Oakland crew arrived at about 10:30 a.m., January
 14th. All signal cases in both directions were
 opened and the relays that were burnt were changed,
 all the lightning arrestors that were damaged were
 replaced. The pole line had to be cleaned up and
 dead-ended to the east end. About 12,000 feet of
 18-gage copperweld duplex was laid out on the ground
 and connected to the pole line and the signals were
 tested. At about 7:30 p.m., the Chief Dispatcher was
 notified to remove the slow order and that all the
 signals were operational.
 The commercial AC power to our signal cases was off,
 so two men were assigned to run generators around the
 clock (24 hours) and to watch that vandals did not
 pull the temporary pole line duplex wires that were
 laying on the ground over the rails.
 This 12,000 feet of temporary pole line wire, laying
 on the ground, was then in violation of the Depart
 ment of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administra
 tion Rule 236.74, that reads:
 '236.74 Protection of insulated wire; splices
 in underground wire.
 This rule requires insulated wire be
 protected from mechanical injury. It
 prohibits puncturing insulation for
 test purposes and requires that
 splices in underground wire have
 insulation resistance at least that
 of the wire spliced.'
Form 1 Award No. 29049
 Page 5 Docket No. SG-28743
 91-3-89-3-131

 In considering this case, the Board concurs with Carrier's position. The central issue before us is whether an emergency existed on the claimed dates. We have carefully examined the parties' positions with respect to this question and within the context of our decisional law relating to emergencies. See for example, Third Division Awards 16123, 20310, 18032, 25443, 221013, 21477, et al. Accordingly, upon this review which was based upon the facts adduced by the parties, we are convinced that Carrier submitted sufficient credible evidence to establish the bona fides of an emergency. Under such circumstances Carrier has broader authority in assigning employees than under normative conditions. We find no evidence that Carrier abused its discretion when it exercised emergen- powers --nd no evidence overcoming Carrier's affirmative defense. To be s violation, but this position could be overcome or defeated where a factual showing establishes an emergency.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: L.L~
 Nancy J.^yWr - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1991.