THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On Sunday, September 11 and on September 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1966, the work of cutting brash and trimming trees on Homestead Spur was performed by employes of the Carter Construction Company, who hold no seniority rights under the Agreement.
The claimants have established seniority rights on the seniority district where the subject work was performed. They were available and fully quahfied to perform all of the subject work.
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled by the Employes at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated May 1, 1960, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The "Homestead Spur" is four miles long, and is located on carrier's Evansville Division. Trees and underbrush had grown along the right-of-way to the extent that it created a safety hazard and had to be trimmed.
Carrier did not have forces available to do the work; there were no furloughed employes, and those who were working worked at least forty hours per week. As a matter of fact, the density of the growth was the result of carrier not having available forces that could be spared to do the work. Carrier therefore contracted the work as provided for by Rule 2(f) of the agreement.
Employes alleged that the agreement was violated and filed claim in favor of Foreman S. Langston and six laborers.
Copies of pertinent correspondence exchanged in connection with the file are attached and identified as Carrier's Exhibits AA through EE.
There is on file with the Third Division a copy of the current working rules agreement and it by reference is made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: For six consecutive days starting on Sunday, September 11, 1966, employes of a contractor performed the work of cutting brush and trimming trees on Homestead Spur; the work is of a kind within the Scope of the Agreement. Carrier claims it did not violate the Agreement by contracting the work out because it did not have sufficient forces laid off to perform the work, thus that the work was properly performed under the exception in Rule 2(f) to the reservation of work in the Scope Rule.
Carrier did not claim that it lacked adequate laid up equipment to perform the work. However, Organization did not deny on the property that Carrier did not have forces laid off in sufficient number and skill to do the work. Organization argues that Rule 2(f) is intended to operate as an exception to the reservation of work only if there is proved lack of both equipment and men.
We do not agree; we said in Award 15011 (Wolf) in regard to the same question between the same parties as here:
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: