This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The facts are not in dispute. On August 18, 1999, the Carrier assigned a System Signal Construction team to replace a railroad crossing signal with a gate arm assembly. The Carrier did not utilize the Toledo-Indianapolis Maintenance Team to do the work.
The Organization filed claim on August 25, 1999 alleging violation of CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94. Specifically, the Organization argues that the repair to the crossing signal and gate arm was not construction work as per Agreement No. 15-18-94, but was maintenance work. The Organization argued in its on-property correspondence that:
The Carrier denied violation of the negotiated Agreement pertaining to the use of a System Construction Gang under these instant circumstances. It pointed out that the driver of a car suffered a heart attack while crossing the track, lost control of his vehicle, and crashed into the crossing signal. The Carrier further noted that the damage was sufficient to require flagging personnel for safety. It clearly noted that the system gang was in the area and was "dispatched to the scene to make necessary emergency repairs."
Following a review of the Agreement, the record on the property and the Awards cited by the parties, we are compelled to find no violation of the Agreement. CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94 defines construction work and states that "Replacing exiting systems as a result of flood, acts of God, derailment or other emergency may also be construction work." The Board finds Third Division Award 29214 directly on point with our conclusion when it notes that "the Federal Railroad Form 1 Award No. 36862
Administration ("FRA")has determined that a broken or a malfunctioning crossing protection is an emergency." As with Third Division Award 32292, we find nothing presented by the Organization to prove that this was not an emergency. Statements that only a road crossing signal was damaged are insufficient to negate the Carrier's position that this was an emergency. Lacking proof to refute the "emergency" nature of the repair, the Board finds no violation of the Agreement (Third Division Award 32292).
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.