THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to May 10, 1951, a Bridge and Building crew in charge of Bridge and Building Foreman D. Cook, constructed an addition to the National Car Loading Building. The work performed by this crew consisted of the installation of concrete footings and flooring, erection of steel frame posts and installation of roof, roofing paper, etc.
When this portion of the building was completed by the Carrier's Bridge and Building forces, it was necessary that the openings be enclosed by the laying of brick masonry walls. A General Contractor was assigned to this portion of the project.
As of May 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21, 1951, the employes of the general contractor performed the masonry work, consuming approximately 552 man-hours while so assigned. The Brotherhood contended that the masonry work was comprehended in the scope of the agreement; that it should have been assigned to Maintenance of Way employes in the Bridge and Building Department, and that the Carrier was in violation of the agreement because of the improper allocation of the work.
Claim was filed in behalf of Bridge and Building Foreman D. Cook, Bridge and Building Mechanic G. Thayer and Bridge and Building Helper P. Schoenfeld, in the amount of 184 hours each at the applicable rates of pay because of the violation referred to. Claim was declined.
All data in support of Carrier's submission have been submtted to Organization and made a part of this particular question in dispute. The right to answer any data not previously submitted to Carrier by Organization is reserved by Carrier.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the contracting of work covered by the Scope Rule as contended by Petitioners. Carrier contracted the work to an outside contractor and it is contended no attempt was made to secure Employes' acquiescence in the assigning of work to individuals not holding seniority rights under the Scope Rule of the effective Agreement.
The Bridge and Building Employes contend that they did a preponderant part of the work required in connection with the building of an addition to the National Car Loading Building at Salt Lake City. The only portion of the work which was farmed out to a general contractor was that of laying brick. That the contention of Carrier that Employes were not qualified to perform the work is erroneous, citing a detailed list of places, and a time record where Employe Thayer, a bricklayer, did this type of work and which was supervised by Foreman Cook. Cited in support of the claim are Awards 5457, 5470 and others.
(1) Carrier did not have competent employes in its Maintenance of Way Department to perform this skilled work, which was an undertaking not contemplated by the Agreement and beyond the capacity of the Carrier's forces.
(3) That the disputed work comes within the category of that recognized by this Board as excluded to employes covered by the scope of the Agreement.
(6) That the claim before us is not a claim for damages but is a claim for "penalty."
Numerous Awards are cited in support of the five items upon which the defense is based. Also numerous projects undertaken by Carrier over a long period of years involving similar construction work handled in the same manner, i.e., given to an outside contractor.
We feel that the work here under consideration does not come within the rules cited by Petitioners. In this claim we are dealing with new construction and the performance of work which by its very nature can only be classified as skilled labor of a definitely technical type. Claims should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and 6549-3'5 611