"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier called and assigned outside forces to perform Maintenance of Way work (operate front end loader to assist in repair of washout) in the vicinity of the American Tissue Switch at Mile Post A 17.4 on the Colonie Main Line on August 2 and 3, 2000, instead of calling and assigning Machine Operator R. Therrien (Carrier's File 8-00168 DHR).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant R. Therrien shall now be compensated for seven (7) hours' pay at his respective time and one-half rate of pay."

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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

On August 2, 2000, a portion of the Colonie Main Line was affected by a washout resulting in the stopping of trains and rendering that portion of the line out of service. Determining that it would be too time consuming to use a front end loader located at Voorheesville which could have been operated by the Claimant, the Carrier opted to bring in a contractor to work on the washout. However, it took the contractor two and one-half hours to get its equipment to the site. This claim followed.

Rule 1.3 provides:

"In the event the Carrier plans to contract out work within the scope of this Agreement, except in emergencies, the Carrier shall notify the General Chairman involved, in writing, as far in advance of the date of the contracting transaction as is practicable and in any event not less than fifteen (15) days prior thereto. `Emergencies' applies to fires, floods, heavy snow and like circumstances."

Clearly, the washout involved in this dispute presented an emergency as contemplated by Rule 1.3. The washout stopped trains and rendered that portion of the line out of service.

The Carrier has substantial latitude in dealing with emergencies. See Third Division Award 26677 and Awards cited therein ("The Board has held that in an emergency Carrier may take whatever action it deems appropriate to cope with its problems . . . .") Rule 1.3 therefore does not bar the Carrier's use of a contractor in this case.

The Organization argues that if the Claimant had been used, the Carrier's equipment could have been on the site in one hour. However, the fact that it took the contractor two and one-half hours to get its equipment to the site does not require a sustaining award. See Third Division Award 12299 ("In an emergency, a

05-3-01-3-646