The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 12, RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to June 1, 1956, the carrier maintained an electrical repair shop, designated as M-1 Shop, at Chicago, Illinois, in which the work of rewinding motors and generators was performed; also the work of repairing, rebuilding, inspecting and overhauling all types of electrical equipment sent into this shop from over the entire system. This work was performed by employes of the electrical workers' craft, hereinafter referred to as the claimants.
The above-mentioned work was performed in a building approximately 600 feet long and 125 feet wide. The building had recently been extensively remodeled, which included a new roof, new concrete floor throughout, the east wall remodeled using transparent glass brick for better lighting and fluorescent lights had been installed over the work benches.
M-1 Shop was well equipped with all the necessary machines and equipment to properly perform the work in question and much of the equip-
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.
Until May 31, 1956 electricians employed in carrier's M-1 shop repaired, rebuilt and overhauled electrical equipment, particularly diesel electric locomotive components. Effective thereafter the carrier contracted with the manufacturers to purchase factory warranted components with agreement by the manufacturer to purchase an equal or lesser number of used components at fixed prices. Effective May 31, 1956, various positions in M-1 shop were abolished.
We have held that the agreement reserves to .the employes covered thereby all of the work described therein performed by the carrier and have held that contracting out of such work was a violation of the agreement. This is not such a case. Here no electrical repair work was performed by or for the carrier. It elected not to repair certain obsolete and unserviceable equipment, but instead to sell it and to purchase factory warranted replacementsThat election is not prohibited or restricted by any agreement provision.
The election reduced the amount of repair work available to the employes covered by the agreement but no provision of that agreement requires the carrier to repair any particular equipment nor restricts its right to discard and dispose of unserviceable equipment instead of repairing it.
Contrary to .the findings of the majority expressed in Award 3184 the work subject of this dispute has been regularly performed by the electrical worker employes subject to controlling agreement between this carrier and System Federation No. 12.
In reaching this decision the majority has based its decision upon grounds completely irreconcilable with decisions of this Division. The majority admits that: 3184-12 631
and in an effort to justify their erroneous conclusions make the unsupported statement that:
Examination of the aforesaid controlling agreement discloses no exception that would authorize the majority's above unsupported statement. (See specifically Rule 115.) The fact, as urged by the carrier, that the company to which the work was contracted offered a new equipment guarantee is not a valid reason for contracting out. Such repairing and rebuilding of equipment was work which belonged to employes under their agreement. Therefore, the majority's award is clearly in error and we are constrained to dissent.