SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
 TO THE ) Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
 DISPUTE ) Employes
 and
 Canadian Pacific Railway-Maine and Vermont

 QUESTIONS 1. Did the conditions existing on August 24, 1984
 AT ISSUE: and August 28, 1984, constitute an emergency,
 as that term is defined in Article 1, Section
 4, entitling the Carrier to reduce forces and
 suspend protective benefits of Claimants
 Wright and Marceau?

                2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, shall the Carrier be required to compensate Claimants for all losses sustained from the date each was furloughed until recalled to service?


OPINION
              OF THE BOARD: Claimants were Clerks at Newport, Vermont. The Carrier has joint trackage rights with the Boston

and Maine between White River Junction and Newport. Due to a
 flood, a Boston and Maine rail bridge at Wells River, Vermont
 collapsed on June 28, 1984, requiring the Carrier to reroute
 traffic over Delaware and Hudson lines commencing on July 6,
 1984. The detour was over rail right of way west of the Newport
 line. Despite the diversion of traffic normally routed through
 Newport, Claimants Wright and Marceau worked until August 24 and
 28 respectively to perform clerical work associated with the
 movement of Carrier's trains involved in an extensive ballast
 replacement program on the out of service main line. When the
 ballast work was completed, the Carrier furloughed Claimants
 pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the February 7, 1965
                                        AWARD N0. 454

Case No. CL-145-W Agreement and alleged that but for the work trains, the Carrier would have immediately laid off Claimants (with sixteen hours notice) on June 28, 1984. The Boston and Maine repaired the bridge. On November 16, 1984, through freight traffic resumed between White River Junction and Newport. Claimants were simultaneously recalled to service.

The factual gravamen of the dispute is how long the emergency endured. The Organization contends that the emergency situation ceased when service was restored on the Delaware and Hudson detour route on July 6, 1984. The Carrier-argues that the emergency continued until the Boston and Maine repaired the bridge resulting in a resumption of traffic through Newport.

To justify its furlough of Claimants without protective benefits, the Carrier must prove the three Article I, Section 4 elements as follows: (1) an emergency occurred; (2) the emergency conditions resulted in a full or partial suspension of operations; and (3) the emergency caused the loss of Claimants' work. (See Award Nos. 245 and 341.) Since the parties agree that an emergency existed at the time of the Boston and Maine bridge collapse, the issue is whether the emergency continued subsequent to July 6, 1984 even though the Carrier had restored through freight service over a foreign line.

The record establishes that Claimants' regular work was contingent on the movement of trains through Newport. The detour was remote from Newport. The Carrier was unable to operate through trains on the joint track until Boston and Maine reopened the bridge on November 16, 1984. Carrier data shows a


                          -2-

                                        AWARD NO. 454

Case No. CL-145-W substantial curtailment in the number of cars handled at Newport which constituted a partial, if not almost total, suspension of service through Claimants' point. Consequently, Claimant's loss of work was directly caused by the bridge washout. Thus, the emergency continued until the bridge was reopened permitting the Carrier to resume normal operations between Wells River and Newport. The emergency ended on November 16, 1984.

AWARD
 The Answer to Question 1 is "Yes." Question 2 is moot.

 John B. LaRocco
 Neutral Member
 Dated: July 29, 1987