The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee J. Harvey Daly when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO 6, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter called the carrier, maintains a diesel engine truck repair shop at Silvis, Illinois, where machinists axe employed to perform, among other things, the rebuilding and repairs to diesel power trucks.
Machinists H. Hanson, D. Wells, T. Koepple, L. Woods and J. Boland, hereinafter called the claimants, are machinists employed at carrier's truck repair shop in Silvis, Illinois.
On December 29, 1961, the carrier sent a diesel power truck from Silvis, Illinois truck shop to an outside firm for repairs. The carrier, in taking this work off the property for repairs, denied its machinists and particularly the claimants, the following work: laying out of the power truck for proper alignment; grinding of pedestal jaw faces and lateral surfaces and such other
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the w=hole 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.
On December 29, 1961, the Carrier sent a diesel truck to the General Steel Casting Corporation at Granite City, Illinois for repairs.
The Organization claims that the Carrier's action violated Rules 28, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the controlling Agreement, dated October 16, 1948.
1) Rules 28 and 53, in particular, of the Agreement give the work in question to the Machinists;
2) the Carrier's Shop facilities at Silvis, Illinois, are "abundantly sufficient to handle the work in question";
3) the Carrier's Machinists have the experience and skill to perform the work in question.
4) "diesel locomotive power truck frames which have suffered substantially heavier damage", than the frame herein involved, "have been repaired at Silvis Shops."
1) the diesel truck had been so extensively damaged in a wreck that it was necessary to return this truck to the plant of its original builder "for the extensive repairs required";
2) the damage "included the breaking off and loss of one complete pedestal jaw piece" and "this Carrier is not equipped to build the necessary pattern, cast the missing jaw and add this piece to the original casting."
3) the Carrier is not "equipped to correct the serious twist and distortion which was apparent in various sections of this truck frame".
In support of its position, the Carrier alleges that its action fell within the specific exceptions set forth on Page 69 in the Memorandum of Understanding, and, in support of that allegation, offered only the statement that "many, many times in the past, without claim or protest," the Carrier "had extensively damaged trucks * * * repaired by the factory". However, the Carrier did state in the record that "the Carrier has, of course, in the past had varying degrees of damaged trucks repaired by its forces if its facilities were adequate". Surely the words "varying degrees of damaged trucks" must encompass damage of a minor, medium and major nature.
In the instant case the Board cannot agree that the Carrier has shown a necessity for its action. The Carrier never denied that the work belonged to 4444-7 816