"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (KRW Contracting) to perform Maintenance of Way and Structures Department work (remove and install ties) in the vicinity of Mile Post 68 in Schuyler, Nebraska on December 11, 12, 13 and 14, 200? (System File D-0752U 230/1495223).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with a proper advance written notice of its intention to contract out said work or make a goodfaith attempt to reach an understanding concerning said contracting as required by Rule 52(a).

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants J. Beavers, J. Mumm and B. Sock shall now each be compensated for thirty-eight (38) hours at their respective and applicable 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 determination of this claim turns on the Carrier's ability to meet its burden to establish Its affirmative defense of the existence of an emergency that justified Its actions. Although the Carrier also contends it provided notice of the contracting out well before the events at Issue and before the events occurred, It Is the affirmative defense of "emergency" that the Board reviews first. After careful review of the statements presented on the property, the Board finds the following underlie the events that are subject to the claim. The contractor (KRW) came and remained on the scene after the track was deared and the slow order remained in effect. The contractor used three of its employees to operate Its backhoes - equipment within the Carrier's inventory. The contractor remained on site for eight hours on December 11 and ten hours on December 12, 13 and 14. Each of the contractor's employees worked 38 hours.

The Organization argues that the Carrier did not carry its burden to establish that an "emergency" existed because of the derailment. The Board's findings are based on the employee's statement included in the on-property record. There was a derailment that blocked both mainline tracks. Such blockage constitutes an "emergency." (See Third Division Award 3209?.)

The Carrier deployed personnel from at least three gangs located in the area to clear the track. All employees, including the Claimants, were fully employed. After the blockage was removed from one track, a slow order was placed on traffic on the other track.

The Carrier brought the contractor on site after one track was cleared. In Third Division Award 29965, the Board recognized that the work to restore mainline track to full operation cannot wait. Initially, after a derailment no notice is required. (See Third Division Award 38953.)

The Organization notes that the track was in service. However, it was under a slow order. Because this was an emergency, Rule 52 recognizes that the Carrier has the latitude to deploy its own or contractor forces necessary to address the emergency.

The emergency continues when traffic must travel under a slow order. (See Third Division Award 32273.) In Award 32273, due to flooding there was a washout. The Board concluded that the Carrier could use contractor forces to address the emergency, where traffic had to operate under a slow order.

In this case, the Carrier committed a large number of its forces (that presumably were working on other projects prior to the emergency) to the derailment. Initially, the derailment created an emergency situation. It continued under the slow order. It is welt established that the Carrier may deploy contractor forces to address an emergency. (See Third Division Awards 31676 and 38953.)

AWARD