Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMETTr BOARD Award No.
7960
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7808
2-CMStP&P-CPI-' 79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered,
( System Federation No.
76,
Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
.._.. (
( Chicago, Nilwauhee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of i'71:mloyes:
1. That the Chicago, Tl:ihwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company,
hereafter referred to as the Carrier, did unjustly deprive Carmen
G. Hairner and D. Dec Ler,
hereinafter
known as the Clai~:ants, of
the work of dismantling freight cars fox scrap, thereby unjustly
depriving; each of the Clairaa.nts seventy-two hours at the time and
one-hall' rate of
pLl.y.
2. That the Carrier be ordered to cox:pensa%e each of the two Claimants
in the amount of seventy-two hours at the time and one-half rate
of pay.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers arid the ozn.ploye or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 19316.
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 alleges that the Carrier used an outside contractor to
dismantle freight cars for scrap, following a derailment at Canton, S.D..,
although such work had been previously performed by Carmen on a m:Tstem-pride
basis. Petitioner, accordingly, claims a violation of Rules
85
(Carmen's
Classification of Work Rule); 31(a) (Seniority); 32(a) (Assignment of
Vox:11);
and
33
(Assignment of Welding Work).
Carrier, on the other hand., refers to its lord-standing practice to
contract out work such as that involved in the instant claim; that in a pr:i.or
situation, it had agreed with the Organization that "the salvaging of usable
parts a t a derailment would be perior7ned
air
the Carmen Craft"; that the
current claim did not involve a salvage operation but a scrap operation, in
that the contractor tress used "to cut up and load the destroyed freight
Foam 1
Page 2
Award No.
7960
Docket No.
7808
2-ChZStP° P-CM-'
7H
cars ... for shipment to St. Paul Store Department for disposition and sale
of the scrap"; and that the cuttin~ up of scrap car is not encompassed in
the Caxnnen's Classification of Work Rule nor is such work reserved exclusively
to Carmen.
Both parties in their Submissions arid during the processing of the claim
on the property referred to a prior case -- the Nina case. Carrier's
position is that in the I%1ina case it used a contractor to salvage usable
parts, which it acknowledged was C armen's work. However, the cutting up
of the cars for scrams loading, also perfo?~:ed by the contractor, was not
considered Carmen 's i-,ork and no claim was made for that work in the handling
of that case.
The instant case is distinguishable, according to Carrier, in that
Carmen (not the contractor) sa1Z~a..ed the usable parts, Unlike the Mina case,
therefore, the instant claim involves only the cutting up of cars for scrap.
And on that issue, Carrr_er submitted a list showing, over a 5-year period,
that it had used contractors for cutting up for scrap, cars involved in
derailments.
In swn, on the basis of the disposition of the Mina case and the Carmen's
Work Classification Rule, Carrier denies that the work in question is
reserved to Caxznen.
A close reading of the record supports the finding that the disputed
work eras not a salvage operation but a scrap process, and that the contractor
was used. only after members of the Carmen craft had cum- - leted the salvaging
of parts operation.
Tao
probative evidence has been submitted by Petitioner
that the contractor used by the Carrier performed salvage work or that cutting
up of scrap is either contractually reserved to Carmen or that such work
belongs to Carmen on the basis of past practice. Carrier's records and
itemization of use of contractors over a 5-year period. effectively refutes
Petitioner's allegations. Accordingly, we wild. deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOTafL RAILROAD ADdUSTAEIV'I' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~ema,cle Prasch - Administratlive Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Il:l:inois, this 13th day of dune,
1979.