This dispute is similar to the one discussed in Third Division Award 30160. In this case, the work performed by the safety Committee (designated as "Spring Cleaning Teams") was at Rougemere Yard, Dearborn, Michigan and consisted of cleaning of debris and painting work on April 9 and 10, 1990. While maintenance of way employees participated in this work, a number of those participants were from different seniority districts than the one covering Rougemere Yard. Further, the work was also performed by employees from other crafts and from supervision.

For the same reasons discussed in Third Division Award 30160, the general work performed on the dates set forth in the claim falls within the purview of the governing Rule 59. As we further stated in that Award:

"No matter how important the Safety Committee's work may be, without a showing that an emergency existed and covered employees were not available or that the work performed by the Committee was of a de minimis nature, that Committee cannot undermine the rights of the

For those reasons and for the same reasons rejecting the Carrier's other arguments discussed in that Award, this claim must also be sustained. We also note that with respect to the Carrier's past practice argument, this record further reveals that the asserted practice is not well-established. Here, the organization points out in its November 21, 1990 letter that "the Carrier has paid claims in the past regarding Safety Committee members performing Maintenance of Way work."

As in Third Division Award 30160, the amount of work actually performed in this case is also in dispute. Therefore, as we did in Third Division Award 30160, for a remedy:

"[I]n order to make Claimants whole for the lost work opportunity, we shall require claimants to be compensated for a reasonable amount of time attributable to the Safety Committee's performance of the ... work on the date(s] set forth in the claim as determined by the parties."

A W A R D