Form 1 NATIONAL RA.ILRO-U ADJUSTMLi1T BOARD Award No.
77+5
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
761+-T
2-MP-CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
Parties to Dispute-
Claim of EEbloyes:
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
( (Carmen)
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Article V of
the agreement of Januar
y 12, 1976
when they arbitrarily contracted
out the work of retailing diesel unit No.
1190
and freight car
ATSF
31232
at Freeport, Texas to another railroad (Houston Belt
and Terminal Railroad), Miarch
30, 1976.
2. That,
accordingly,
the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to coripen:;ate Carmen C . Sarcipson, E . Dalcou r, and W.
Roberson in the amount of four
(4)
hours each at the punitive rate
of pay account of this violation.
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 tine meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June
21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Petitioner asserts that Carrier violated the .provisions of Article V
of the December
4, 1975
(effective Jan.
12., 1976)
Agreement' when on March 30,
1976,
the reraillng of diesel unit no.
3190
and ATSF freight car no. 3123'+2
was contracted to Houston Belt and Terminal Railroad.
Carrier alleges that this Board may not properly consider the dispute.
Its allegation is premised on Article VI of the September
2>, 196
_sCree:netx-c
which established Special Board of Adjustment No. 570 and most particularly
Section
8
of Article VI reading:
F oxsn 1
Page 2
Award No. 77+5
Docket No. 761+-T
2-MP-CM-'78
"The Board shall have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
between the patties growing out of grievances concerning
the interpretation ox application of Article I, 1~mployee
Protection, and Article II, Subcontracting."
The dispute at hand was handled on the property solely as a violation
of Article V of the December
4,
1975 Agreement (effective January l2, 1976).
Article V addresses itself to
amending
Article II of the September 25, 190+
Agreement (Subcontracting), and Article VI, Section 14 (Remedy), which relates
itself entirely to subcontracting violations. It must be held, therefore,
that this is a dispute between the parties growing out of grievances concerning
the interpretation ox application of Article II, Subcontracting. Special Board
of Adjustment No. 570 has exclusive jurisdiction of such disputes.
This dispute should be distinguished from those covered in Awards from
this Division whe:.~^e subcontracting was involved but the clairi arose under
classification of work rules ox Special ,rules and did not involve the interpretation ox application of Article II of the September 25,
196+
Agreement.
(Awards 6257, 6325, 6529,
6800,
7+36 and 7670).
A W A R D
Claim dismissed fox lack of jurisdiction.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNENT B0IJD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~'R-semaxie Brasch - Administrative t:ssistant
Date(~ ~at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November, 1978.