use. Award No. 18288
Docket No. MW-18715
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without an understanding having been reached between the Assistant Vice President,
Engineering and Maintenance of Way and General Chairman, as
required by Rule 2, it assigned the work of constructing 2,100 feet of
track and installing one (1) turnout between Dickerson and Oxford,
North Carolina to outside forces. (System File 12-2/C-4.)
(2) The members* of Extra Force No. 8564, Raleigh Division
each be allowed pay at their respective straight time rates 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.
(*) R. A. Martin, Foreman
J. E. Gilchrist, Cook
C. Green, Trackman
C. E. Peterson, Trackman
W. D. Sanders, Trackman
J. E. Spruill, Trackman
W. Bluford, Trackman
C. Grant, Trackman
G. N. Spruill, Trackman
G. R. Owens, Trackman
C. J. Moody, Trackman
W. A. Blount, Trackman
C. L. Vincent, Trackman
A. Miles, Trackman
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimants are the Fore-
man and members of Extra Force 8564 on the Raleigh Division.
sary. This particular project would, as outlined above, certainly come
under the exception contemplated by the rule. As you know, Rule 2
was brought forward intact into the current agreement from the
former Atlantic Coast Line agreement and proper recognition was
historically given on that Carrier to the wording and intent of the
rule. It was properly interpreted as permitting the contracting of
work under certain circumstances and conditions and your protestations to the contrary do not change the interpretation and application
thereof as you are contending. In this connection you are referred to
Third Division Award 11790.
There was no violation of the agreement and no justification or
support for the penalty claim filed and appealed by you. Therefore,
it is declined."
NOTE: The contract referred to above between Seaboard Coast
Line, the City of Oxford and the North Carolina State
Highway Commission, as well as the two letters referred
to from the North Carolina Highway Commission, are
reproduced and attached as Carrier's Exhibit A.
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."
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the same parties, Agreement
Rule and pivotal issues as in Award No. 18287. For reasons stated in that
Award we will sustain the Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral bearing;
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
That Carrier violated the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November, 1970.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in UZ.A.
18288 13