"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL):

Claim on behalf of P. J. Hoffman for payment of 3.5 hours at the time and one-half rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Appendix `P,' when it failed to call the Claimant for overtime service on his assigned section on February 1, 1992." Carrier's File No. SG-543. General Chairman's File No. RM2404-58-193. BRS File Case No. 9145-CR."

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This case involves a claim by the Organization that the Carrier violated the Agreement on February 1, 1992, when it failed to call the Claimant to repair a gate pole

that had been knocked over and was fouling the track at Morgan Boulevard in Camden, New Jersey. The Organization asks that the Claimant be made whole for the loss of the work opportunity and seeks three and one-half hours pay at the time and one-half rate. According to the Organization, Appendix "P" required that the Claimant, as the regularly assigned Maintainer on his section, be called for the overtime. The Organization asserts that the Claimant was available for service on the day in question.

The Carrier, on the other hand, states that the malfunctioning crossing gate constituted an urgent situation requiring the Carrier's immediate attention. It asserts that prior Awards of this Division allow that a Carrier must be granted latitude to act as quickly as possible to correct a problem.

After reviewing the record evidence, we conclude that the Carrier violated Appendix "P" when it bypassed the Claimant and called an employee who was behind the Claimant on the call list. There is no evidence that calling the Claimant would have delayed the Carrier's response to the trouble.

We also conclude that the appropriate remedy under these unique facts and circumstances shall be to award the Claimant three hours at the straight time rate.

AWARD