The Carrier re-emphasizes that the Nordberg Company did nothing more than to demonstrate its newly developed and improved machinery, which was very expensive, unavailable and unfamiliar to the Carrier or its employes. The demonstration was free of charge, and its sole purpose was to demonstrate the equipment. It was not intended, nor did it, deprive Maintenance of Way employes of work and, for this reason alone, there is no basis for this claim. This principle is upheld in Second Division Award 2377, where the Board states in part:
Furthermore, the Carrier submits that no Maintenance of Way employe lost any compensation or time as a result of this demonstration. Instead, Section Gang No. 3, the Gang herein involved, worked on their assigned section throughout the demonstration, performing their customary duties connected with track surfacing. Thus, the Claimants were not adversely affected, and there, in any case, could be no proper objection to having demonstrations performed under the circumstances described herein.
All relevant facts and arguments involved in the dispute have heretofore been made known to the employes.
OPINION OF BOARD: This Carrier and the Nordberg Manufacturing Company arranged for the demonstration of a newly-designed Track SurfacePower Jack unit and an improved Automatic Gang Tamper. The actual demonstration of the equipment began on December 11, 1956, and continued through the next seven working days. It was confined to a distance of 2.06 miles of Carrier's track. Except for one machine operator employed by the Carrier and assigned to observe the demonstration, all others involved were employes of Nordberg.
The Petitioner contends that the work involved in the demonstration, i.e., track surfacing by means of raising, leveling and tamping, belongs to the employes it represents under the Scope Rule of the effective Agreement and, thus, the Agreement was violated when others were used to perform that work.
It appears to the Board, however, that the work claimed as a matter of right under the Agreement was only incidental to the sole purpose here sought to be accomplished-to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of new equipment under actual operating conditions. No work was contracted out; no leasing arrangements were made; no charges by Nordberg for the service performed were levied. There is no evidence in this record that the demonstration was arranged by the Carrier and Nordberg to avoid having the work of surfacing track performed by covered employes. (See Second Division Award 2377).
Under the factual situation present here, the claim is not supported by the Agreement and, therefore, must fail.
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: 17.332-10 988