NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 SECOND DIVISION Award No. 12655
Docket No. 125:27
94-2-92-2-153
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated current Agreement Rule 27 and 112 dated June
1, 1939, as subsequently amended when on January
19, 1991 two (2) employes and the President from
Stainless Steel Vacuvator Service, an outside
concern, came to St. Louis, Missouri Terminal on
Rip Access Track R-S-4, Shop Track, on N&W property
and performed a combined total of twenty-four (24)
manhours of work in correcting or adjusting the
load of lumber on SP 565139 rail car.
2. That because of such violation, the Norfolk and
Western Railway Company be ordered to compensate
Carmen V. Meyer, H. H. Hayden and W. Cheung for
eight (8) hours each at the overtime 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 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
On January 19, 1991, Carrier used the services of an outside
contractor to adjust a load of lumber on SP 565139. The
organization argues that Carmen should have been used, and makes
claim for the amount of time employees of the contractor worked on
the project. Carrier maintains that the contractor utilized a
Form 1 Award No. 12665
Page 2 Docket No. 12527
94-2-92-2-53
forklift with a 16 foot mast in the adjusting activity, and that it
did not have such equipment available at its St. Louis facility.,
It is uncontested that special equipment was needed to adjust
the lumber load on January 19, 1991. Carrier did not have this
special equipment available at the yard where the work was required
to be performed before the car involved could be moved. Accordingly, it was not an agreement violation to utilized the services of
a contractor to perform the work.
The claim is without merit. It will be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
2t~
Catherine Loughrin - terim Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of February 1994.