The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPARTMENT A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Sheet Metal Workers)
DISPUTES: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: "1. That the Carrier has violated the terms of the current agreement by contracting out the constructing of gas pipe line in Spencer Shop and Shop Yards, Spencer, Sorth Carolina, to persons other than Sheet Metal Workers that are covered by the current agreement.
2. That the following Sheet Metal Workers be compensated for eight (8) hours for each date listed below, at $2.476 rate of pay per hour:
for having been deprived of their contractual right to work on the gas pipe line."
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheet Metal Workers B. R. Withers, Jr., H. G. Henderson, R. H. Zimmerman, Wilber L. Lomax, Clyde A.
and painted it with aluminum paint. The contractor was equipped with devices for correctly aligning and holding the pipe and fittings for welding and had in his employ welders versed in pipe welding. Special tools, skills and equipment were required for completion of the job in a satisfactory manner. Then, too, the work had to be performed as expeditiously as possible.
The claim and demand which the Sheet metal Workers' International Association here attempts to assert involves only the pipe work. It is, therefore, clear that the claim and demand involve only a part of the construction job contracted.
Under the principles of prior Board awards, some of which are quoted above, work contracted out is to be considered as a whole and may not be subdivided for the purpose of determining whether some parts of it were within the capacity of Carrier's forces (Awards 3206, 4776, 4954, 5304, 5563, 6112, and others). Here, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association seeks to subdivide the work contracted by laying claim to only a part of it.
Then too, no exclusive right to pipe work is granted by the terms of the agreement in evidence. Nor as evidenced by the record has pipe work been exclusively performed under an established practice. The employes do not have monopolistic rights.
Carrier's right to contract work in these circumstances has heretofore been recognized on numerous occasions as evidenced by the above referred to awards all of which negative the claim and demand.
The evidence is, therefore, clear that, aside from the fact that the effective agreement recognizes the managment's right to contract the work here in dispute, such right is also recognized under the principles of prior Board awards.
(a) The effective agreement was not violated as alleged and does not support the claim and demand which the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association here attempts to assert.
(b) The principles of prior awards of the Board fully support the carrier's action in contracting construction of the gas pipe line system here involved and definitely negative the claim and demand here made.
Claim and demand being without any basis and unsupported by the agreement in evidence, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.
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. 3760-14 112