This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The Claimants were furloughed on December 6, 7 and 10, 1990, after the demolition of a bridge during a derailment caused a reduction in operations from twenty trains per day to one local train. The organization contends that the Carrier violated Section 1, paragraphs (4) and (5) of Article J of the Agreement in that it furloughed Claimants without giving them the required five days notice. The Carrier contends that an emergency existed and that it was not required to give notice under the terms of paragraph (5).

Article J reads in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Except as provided in Paragraph 5 hereof, before positions are abolished or discontinued, not less than five (5) working days advance written notice shall be given the employees affected, and a notice shall be posted on bulletin boards, and be made accessible to all employees affected ....

5. The notice required in Paragraph 4 hereof is not required in emergency conditions, such as flood, snowstorm, hurricane, earthquake, fire, or strike, provided that the Company's operations are suspended in whole or in part and provided further that, because of such emergency, the work which would be performed by the incumbents of the position or the positions to be abolished or the work which would be performed by the employee involved in the force reductions no longer exists and cannot be performed. However, if notice is not provided prior to an employee leaving his residence for work, the employee shall be paid as if the employee had worked. When the emergency is over, forces shall be restored."

In resolving this dispute, we are guided by Third Division Award 24445, where the Board interpreted a similar Rule:

"The Board has no difficulty in determining that the Court ordered embargo was an 'emergency'. The organization argues, however, that it was not a 'flood, snowstorm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire, or a

Additional clarification is found in Third Division Award 25574, where the Board stated:

"Moreover, the work 'strike' in this context indicates that the emergency conditions contemplated by the Parties are not confined to natural disasters, but were intended to include circumstances which can arise on the property of or with the equipment of a consignee. The common denominator in these disparate contractual examples is an unanticipated, unforeseen event over which Carrier has no control; one which results in suspension of a Carrier's operations in whole or in part."

After reviewing the record in this case, we find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Carrier's position that an emergency condition existed on the property within the meaning of Paragraph (5). As to the two additional days claimed for Claimant Rennick, the organization failed to rebut the Carrier's material assertion on the property that his temporary position had expired when forces were restored, and this statement thus stands as established fact.

A W A R D