This claim filed on March 31, 1997 protests the Carrier's failure to pay the six named Claimants at the double time rate of pay for work performed after their bulletined starting times on Sunday, February 9,1997, their second non-scheduled day, as a violation of Rule 40(f), which states as follows:
There is no dispute that the Claimants had regular assignments of Monday to Friday, with rest days of Saturday and Sunday, and had performed all regular work hours in the workweek from February 3 through 7, 1997.. They were called to work between 2:00 A.M. and 3:00 A.M. on February 9, 1997 for snow duty and worked until 5:00 P.M. that day. They were paid at the time and one-half rate for all hours worked on February 9, 1997.
The Organization argues that, since the part of the work performed by the Claimants on February 9,1997 from 2:00 A.M. to their bulletined start time (8:00 A.M.) fell within their first rest day, they qualify for double time for the work actually performed after their bulletined start times on their second rest day under the abovequoted provisio contends that the emergency exception to Rule 40(f) applies in this circumstance, as the assignment involved emergency snow work, rather than planned overtime.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the record on the property does not sufficiently support the Carrier's claim that an emergency existed to remove the Claimants from the coverage of Rule 40(f).
The only argument made by the Carrier on the property was that an emergency existed because the Claimants had to be called out at 2:00 A.M. to deal with snow removal. It gave no explanation of the type of situation involved, the effects of the situation requiring immediate action or why the snow removal activity could not have Form 1 Award No. 35590
been anticipated. The Carrier merely argued on the property that the situation fell within the dictionary definition of "emergency," an unexpected situation that requires prompt action. The Board has repeatedly held that the Carrier has the burden of proof of an emergency and mere assertions of emergency are insufficient to meet that burden. See Third Division Awards 31531, 22821 and 20310.
We do note that, in its Submission to the Board, the Carrier attempted to provide evidence of the weather data forecast showing that it could not have anticipated what occurred which was a weather anomaly, and set forth a recitation of facts indicating that unsafe conditions existed at West Side Yard due to ice build-up that the Carrier had to respond to immediately to prevent employee injury. This evidence comes too late to be properly considered by the Board, but is the type of information the Carrier could have provided on the property to support its claim of an emergency condition. Having failed to do so, the Carrier did not meet its burden of proving that an emergency situation existed on the claim date. Accordingly, the Claimants are entitled to the double time rate for hours worked on February 9,1997 between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. See Public Law Board No. 4622, Award 6.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.