I am hereby presenting claim in behalf of Carpenters H. Buwalda, (Work Number 2572) and F. Gaydeck (Work Number 2468) for seventy (70) hours' pay each at their straight time rates of pay because an outside contractor (F. H. Leinweber) was used to prepare the floor and to lay tile in the hallway of the second floor of the Dearborn Street Station and also in Room 228. I should advise that, sometime ago, I entered into an agreement with the Chief Engineer at that time (Mr. Hillman), which permitted a contractor to install some flooring, with the understanding that two of our B&B forces would be used as assistants and observers in order to become proficient in performing work of this type. Each of the claimant employes are well qualified to perform work The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated
April 15, 1940, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS': In 1956 approximately 80% of the flooring on the second floor of Carrier's Dearborn Passenger Terminal Offices was rehabilitated by the application of permaflex underlayment and the installation of floor tile. This work was performed under contract with an outside concern without claim or protest from the Maintenance of Way Organization.
Beginning August 3, 1967, the flooring in the remainder of the hallway and one office was rehabilitated, using the same methods and materials under contract with an outside concern.
Under date of October 10, 1967, General Chairman Caputo filed claim with B & B Supervisor Zabrockas covering this most recent work.
The original claim and other correspondence exchanged between the parties during handling of the dispute on the property, identified as Carrier's Exhibits "A" through "F", are attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The following, quoted in full is the scope rule of the controlling agreement between the carrier and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees:
case is whether or not the claimants were qualified to perform the work assigned to an outside contractor.
The Carrier contends that certain skills were required in connection with "preparing the floor" as distinguished from laying tile and contends that a special process and material was used which required skilled labor and that the men submitting the claims were not qualified to perform this type of work.
The general rule of this Board was stated in Award No. 7805 and quoted in Award No. 11862 as follows:
The record reflects that Bridge and Building employees did not have the necessary skills in 1954 to perform the type work in question and while there may have been correspondence between the parties relative to training Carrier's employees to learn the skills necessary to perform this type work, there is no showing that the claimants were so trained nor is there evidence that they have experience in connection with the application of this special process and material used in preparing the floor.
It cannot be successfully maintained, on the state of the record before us, that Carrier's contentions are without merit.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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