PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 T_0 and
 DISPUTE: Burlington Northern Railroad Co.
 STATEMENT "l. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier
 OF CLAIM: assigned outside forces to perform S''t OW
 removal work at the Duluth-Superior Terrain,;;
 on January 24, 25,-26-,-27 and 28, 1982.

              2. As a ,consequence of -the aforesaid violati·.._

              Claimants T. WA7liams, 0. w_ Kolodzeske, J (_

              Parker, R. Porter, W. Mercier, D. Koecher. _.

              Peterson,-G. Bertran and G. Eklund shall each

              be allowed compensation at their respect lyo

              straight time and time and one-half ratE...

              from equal share of three hundred and thirty

              sin (336) total hours (one hundred seventy-s·

              (176) straight time hours and one hund,or·

              sixty 0160) overtime hours) of work perfvr wet.

              by the Contractor forces on the dates referrer-

                  to in part (1) hereof." -

FINDINGS
 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that. ~!,e
 parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of rr,a
 Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is dulv
 constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has ,jurisdiction of tr,F
 parties and the subject matter.

The dispute herein deals with the period of time already referre,; to in Award No. 56 of this Board. During the week of January 24. 1982, a severe winter storm hit the entire area including th,e Duluth-Superior-Allouez Terminal resulting in the eHfire .,reh being buried under tons of snow. The result of this blizzaro was

2 effectively the halting of all train operations in the Terminal. Carrier herein. together with most other enterprises and government units in the area, declared a -snow emerqency .and attempted to marshall all available forces and equipment to clear the snow and restore normal operations. The efforts to clear the _~now continued --throughout the entire period of this claim, starting January 24 and continuing through January 29. - The evidence in the record indicates that, with all forces marshalled and all equipment being used, Carrier was-unable to clear the snow away and haul it from the Terminal without outside assistai,c:e, Carrier forces and equipment were being worked as nearly .as possible around the clock in order to achieve the desired result

In addition, Carrier contracted four front end loaders and tw% motor graders from outside contractors, togetherr with their drivers, to assist in the operation. This selection was mane after Carrier attempted to call three other firms and enquired whether or not equipment was available without operators so that Carrier's employees, if available, could be utilized. None of ti,e contractors were willing to furnish machines without operators during the snow emergency. It must be noted that Claimants herein, together with other Carrier machine operators, were fullv employed at the time, attempting to clear the snow from the Terminal.


Petitioner insists that the work of the character involved has customarily and historically been performed- by Carrier's Roadwa;


                                                  3L1 (o0 -l~7

Equipment Sub-Department Employees as reserved to those employees

 under many rules of the Agreement including Rules 1, 2 and 55 -
 Petitioner, maintains further that the purpose of the Agreement :yncr
 the scope rule was violated and defeated by the action of Carrier
 in this instance. It is urged that work of a class belonged -to
 those- for whose benefit the contract --was made and that the
 assignment of such work to others, not covered by the Agreement. -
 is a violation. Additionally, Petitioner notes that in a letter,
 dated October 11, 1971, the Carrier's Vice President of Labor,
 Relations specified that Rule 55 classifies work that comes under
 the scope of the Agreement. Thus, Rule 55 and the work therein is
 an integral component of the scope rule. Petitioner argues
 further that there were indeed contractors who would have leased
 equipment without drivers or operators oh the dates in question
 and, furthermore, that Claimants, though employed, did suffer, loss of work opportunity as a result of Carrier's actions.

Carrier's principal argument is that it properly contracted the snow removal work during the emergency. In addition, Carrierargues that there is no evidence whatever establishing that snow removal work is work customarily performed by employees in the Maintenance of Way Department. In this instance, many crafts were used to accomplish the desired snow removal work, in addition to the outside forces, and in addition to employees represented try this Organization. -Carrier did not have additional equipment they could use and, therefore, was unable to handle the work without


                                                  3Yioo-(o7

4
 using outside contractors, with their equipment, to relieve the
 emergency situation. In addition, Carrier notes that the
 Organization has not proved that there were indeed contractors whu
 would have- had equipment available without operators during that
 particular snow emergency period.

This dispute turns on two principles. The first one was addressee by this- Board in Award No. 56, as well as In Award No. 65 of this Board. In those awards, the Board indicated that there was no evidence that the removal of snow was -exclusively reserved t,. Maintenance of 'Nay Employes- Perhaps, the most important element. however, with respect to this dispute, is the last paragraph of


the note to Rule 55 which reads as follows-: -

      "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting the right of the Company to have work customarily performed by employees included in the scope of this Agreement performed by contract in emergencies that affect the movement of treffic when additional force or equipment is required to clear, up such emergency- condition: in the shortest time possible."


The Board must- emphasize the fact- that the particular circumstances involved herein, a blizzard and a total halt to ali operations in the Terminal, clearly constituted an emergency. As such, therefore, the note to Rule 55 absolves Carrier from all restrictions in dealing with that emergency situation. Even it Petitioner were correct 'in its other, assertions and contentions. it is apparent that, during the emergency, Carrier was permitted


                                                  34roo-(0-?

                                                        J

to use outside contracted forces and/or equipment in an effort- -to -
 reduce the emergency and clear it up in the shortest possible
 time. For these reasons, therefore, the claims must be denied.-

    Claims denied.


                I. M. L

                      ----------------------

                      ieberman, Neutral-Chairman


W. Hodynsky.~Car·ri r Member F. H. Funk, Employee Member·

 St. Paul, Minnesota

 Au~¢u5t , 1988

 3y ~0-~7 ~ _