"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier refused to allow the employes assigned to System Gangs 8570, 8571, 8572, 8573, 8574, 8575, 8576, 8577, 8578, 8579 and 8597 to perform service on October 7 and 8, 2005, which were the remaining days of their compressed half work period, and instead were sent home with instructions to report back to their Elburn, Illinois work location on October 16, 2005, which was the first day of their next compressed half work period (System File W-0527151/1435752).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, all employes assigned to System Gangs 8570, 8571, 8572, 8573, 8574, 8575, 8576, 8577, 8578, 8579 and 8597 on October 7 and 8, 2005 shall now each be compensated for twenty (20) hours at their respective straight time rates of pay."

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.

The Claimants established and hold seniority in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. They held regular assignments in Group 20, Group 26 and Group 27 on 11 System Tie Gangs. These System Tie Gangs worked a compressed half schedule and were `on line' at Elburn, Illinois, on the date that the instant dispute arose.

The underlying facts of the claim are not in dispute. In October 2005, the above System Tie Gangs were working the Carrier's TRT-909 track renewal train on the Geneva Subdivision. This subdivision is a double mainline between Chicago. Illinois, and Clinton, Iowa. The gangs were working a compressed half schedule with workdays from October 1 through 8 and rest days from October 9 through October 15.

The record establishes that the track renewal train requires numerous gangs to work in support of the operation and TRT 909 required more than 100 BMWErepresented employees in support. The volume of trains passing through the Geneva Subdivision was reduced by approximately seven or eight trains per day in order to allow reduced traffic that would slow TRT-909's operations. The Geneva Subdivision volume was reduced to approximately 40 to 42 trains per day.

The record also establishes that there was a severe thunderstorm in the area of Topeka, Kansas, on October 1, 2005. The documentation in the record details how the storm dumped ten to 12 inches of water in a short period of time which caused bridge damage and some extensive damage due to washouts. The lines that pass through this area carry all Carrier traffic between Kansas City and St. Louis. Powder River Basin coal trains are part of this traffic.

"Commencing on Thursday October 6, 2005 Employees of Concrete Tie Gangs . . . which was working at Elburn, Illinois approximately 550 miles from Topeka, Kansas, were informed that because of torrential rains in the Topeka, Kansas area they would not be allowed to perform services for the remaining days of their compressed work period as established by Rule 40 and would therefore be released with no pay for either the ltd or 8th of October 2005 and should therefore . . . report to the designated work location again on October 16, 2005. The local Supervisors on the Concrete Tie Project explained to the employees that because of the track damage in Topeka, Kansas set off by the torrential rains they were being instructed not to perform any work on the track for the next two days."

The Organization maintains that the Carrier violated Rule 26 - Work Week, Rule 28 - Establishing Working Hours and Rule 40 - Alternative Work Periods. The Carrier replies that Rule 21(d) provides support for the action. The Carrier had to reroute trains over an extensive portion of the rail network and there was no way that TRT 909 could work during the increased traffic on the Geneva Subdivision.

The Organization responds that the washouts were more than 500 miles away from where TRT-909 was operating. Further, by the Carrier's own admission, the washout on the Salina Subdivision was repaired on October 3, 2005 and the line opened with limited service. None of the cited Rules allow exceptions "for changing the Claimants' established work week/hours, track damage some 550 miles from their assembly point or the loss of a maintenance window nearly a week after the Carrier rearranged its train schedules are NOT among them and cannot be validly implied." According to the Organization, "the Carrier did not present any credible evidence that the Claimants' work location was directly effected by the storms some 550 miles away in Kansas."

The Carrier counters that limited service means just that - a limitation on the traffic and the restoration of limited service did not restore the entire area of damage. The flooding created an emergency condition and Rules 21 and 27 allow for the suspension of work. The forces were reduced during the emergency and restored when the emergency was over. The flooding created a "ripple effect" and the disruption of the Kansas main line had consequences on the Geneva Subdivision - among other areas where traffic was rerouted.

The Board carefully examined the record. The issue before the Board is whether the situation in Kansas permitted the Carrier to suspend two days of operation of TRT-909 on the Geneva Subdivision in Illinois when the storm was on October 1 and the work was suspended for the October 7 and 8, 2005.

Rule 21(d) provides, in pertinent part:

"(d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) hereof, rule, agreements or practices, however established, that require advance notice to

Thus, the question before the Board is whether there was a causal connection between the Kansas floods and the work on TRT 909 on the Geneva Subdivision. Prior Awards cited by the Carrier place the burden of proof in cases such as the instant matter upon the Carrier to establish the existence of an "emergency condition" and the causal relationship to whether it has caused "a suspension of a carrier's operations in whole or in part." (See e.g. Special Board of Adjustment No. 605, Award 436.)

In the record before the Board, the Carrier demonstrated by convincing evidence that a weather-related emergency existed. The record contains extensive documentary evidence of the extent of the damage done in the Kansas area. The record also contains evidence of how the Carrier had to re-route trains around the disrupted main line - including increasing traffic over the Geneva Subdivision beyond what it normally is, let alone what it was reduced to for TRT 909 to operate.

The Organization's argument that there was no connection to the Geneva Subdivision because of the limited service in Kansas that began on October 3, 2005 is not persuasive. Contrary to the Organization's argument, the Carrier presented credible evidence that the Claimants' work location was directly affected by the

Kansas storms and the ensuing rerouting of traffic. The Carrier met its burden of showing a weather-related emergency existed and that Carrier operations were disrupted in whole or in part. This disruption continued to the last two days of the Claimants' compressed work schedule because of the increased traffic that rendered the work of TRT-909 as undoable.

AWARD