The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Patrick Halter when award was rendered.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On August 28, 2004, the Organization filed a claim alleging that "Rules 1, 2, 24, 29, 30 and not limited thereto were violated" when two employees junior to the Claimant were called to help clean up a derailment at La Crosse Yards.
On November 1, 2004, the Carrier denied the claim stating the Roadmaster contacted the Claimant at his residence with no result and then proceeded to call others. The Organization filed an appeal on December 10, 2004, noting there was no proof of an attempt to contact the Claimant.
On January 26, 2005, the Carrier denied the appeal stating the Organization submitted no evidence to support its claim and asserting the Carrier was not required to make several attempts to contact the employee to help with the derailment which was an "emergency" situation.
By letter dated March 21, 2006, the Organization confirmed the conference held on January 25, 2006. It stated that the Carrier made one attempt to contact the Claimant and that was not a reasonable effort during the alleged emergency.
There is no dispute that the derailment was blocking the yard as well as the main line. This was an unforeseen combination of circumstances which called for immediate action to repair the tracks. When an emergency exists, the Carrier is afforded wide latitude to respond to it.
The Carrier's action in responding to this emergency complied with the Agreement. That is, the Carrier engaged in reasonable efforts to contact the proper personnel to respond to the emergency. Those available and responding to the contact handled the emergency situation. The Claimant's statement is insufficient evidence to support his assertion that no one contacted him, but he was available. The Claimant was not at his residence and, thus, was not available. Form 1 Award No. 40669
Alternatively, the claim seeks compensation for Trackman work performed in the Track Sub-department. The Claimant was assigned as a Grinder Operator, which is not in the Track Sub-department. Because the Carrier is required to contact the proper employees for overtime from the proper sub-departments, the Claimant would not have been contacted because he is not in the Track Subdepartment.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that Parts (1) and (2) of the claim are not established. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.