(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without an understanding having been reached between the Assistant Vice President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way and the General Chairman as required by Rule 2, it assigned the work of modifying offices in the Druid Street Freight Station, Jacksonville, Florida to outside forces. (System File 12-2/C-4.)
(2) Each employe* assigned to the carpenter forces on the Jacksonville-Tampa Divisions be allowed pay at their respective straight time rates of pay for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man hours expended by outside forces in performing the work referred to within Part (1) of this claim.
This claim was discussed in conference October 21, 1969, along with some other claims, as confirmed by letter of Carrier's highest designated officer dated November 28, 1969, in which he advised the General Chairman, "You did not present anything new in support of these claims and you were advised we saw no reason for changing our decisions in these cases."
Subsequently, the Carrier's highest designated officer granted a sixty-day extension of the time limit in the instant case.
OPINION OF BOARD: Effective July 1, 1967, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company merged and formed the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. On May 23, 1968, new working agreement covering Maintenance of Way employes of the merged company was executed, to become effective July 1, 1968. Lifted from the former ACL Agreement and incorporated verbatim into the new agreement was Rule 13 covering the contracting out of work. It became Rule 2 of the new agreement and reads:
specific instances, certain work that is to be performed requires special skills not possessed by the employes and the use of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier. In such instances, the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which the work will be performed.
It is further understood and agreed that although it is not the intention of the Company to contract construction work in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department when Company forces and equipment are adequate and available, it is recognized that, under certain circumstances, contracting of such work may be necessary. In such instances, the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which the work will be performed. In such instances, consideration will be given by the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman to performing by contract the grading, drainage and certain other Structures Department work of magnitude or requiring special skills not possessed by the employes, and the use of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier and to performing track work and other Structures Department work with Company forces." (Emphasis ours.)
Petitioner's Claim is that Carrier violated Rule 2 when it contracted out the work "without an understanding having been reached between the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman, setting forth the conditions under which the work would be performed."
Rule 2, in unambiguous terms, prescribes as an indispensable condition precedent to Carrier contracting out work covered by the Agreement that "the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman, will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which the work will be performed." It is a principle of contract construction that where the terms of a contract are unambiguous any party has the right to insist upon compliance with its terms. Past practice to the contrary, if any, is material and relevant in the interpretation and application of the contract only when its terms are ambiguous. It is also a principle of contract construction that expressed exceptions to general provisions of a contract must be strictly complied with and no other exceptions may be inferred. Were we to digress from those principles we would exceed our jurisdiction.
In Award 13461 in which we interpreted Rule 13 in the former Atlantic Coast Line agreement-Rule 2 in the confronting Agreement-we held:
That finding is: (1) squarely in point; and (2) is dispositive of the issue on the merits in the instant case. See, also Award 15333. We, therefore, will sustain paragraph 1 of the Claim.
As to paragraph 2 of the Claim, Carrier contends it should be denied because Claimant suffered no loss (compensation) in that they worked during the entire period in which the contracted out work was being performed.
That the contracted out work was of a nature covered by the Agreement was recognized by Carrier when it sent its letter of September 26, 1968, supra, to the General Chairmen. Therefore, the work and its emoluments was vested in Claimants and remained so vested unless and until Carrier complied with the mandatory procedures prescribed in Rule 2. Carrier's violation of the Rule damaged Claimants in that it wrongfully divested Claimants of contractual rights. For reasons stated in the following Awards we will sustain paragraph 2 of the Claim: Awards No. 11937, 12785, 13832, 14004, 15689, 15888, 16009, 16430, 16520, 16521, 16608, 16734, 16796, 16830, 17093, 17108, 17319 and 17931.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: