CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without prior notice to General Chairman M. R. Martin as required y Article IV of the May 17, 1965 National Agreement it assigned the work of erecting a Car Department building at Tacoma, Washington to outside forces. (System File D-1666/Grievance 42.)
"(a) An employe who, in addition to his other duties, directs the work of men and reports to officials of the Railroad will be designated as a foreman.
(d) An employe assigned to constructing, repairing maintaining or dismantling bridges, building or other structures (except the work referred to in section (c) of this rule), or who is assigned to perform miscellaneous mechanic's work of this nature, will be designated as a bridge and building carpenter and/or mechanic.
It will be noted, however, that the claim before your Board in behalf of claimants Gutierrez, Skaar, Dearing, Arbuckle and Raczkowski is for payment of "equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by outside forces" rather than the actual time claimed by each of the individuals during the progression of the instant claim on the property.
In connection with the claim that is here before your Board for payment of "equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by outside forces" the claimants in the instant case, B&B carpenters and helpers, were not qualified to perform any of the work performed by the Contractor's Ironworkers nor were they qualified to operate the equipment utilized by Contractor's operator. Therefore, the total mar.-hours consumed by Contractor's Ironworkers (199Y2 hours) and the total man-hours consumed by Contractor's operator (? hours) in the performance of the work here involved cannot properly be claimed by the claimants in the instant case. In other words, of the total man-hours consumed by Contractor's forces (356~i hours) 2031/2 of those man-hours constitutes work that the claimants were not qualified to perform thus they cannot properly claim "equal proportionate share" of the 203?·z hours here involved.
The work with which we are here concerned is not within the scope and application of the Maintenance of Way Agreement either by schedule rules or past practice nor is it work that can be claimed under other agreements i.e., the May 17, 1968, Agreement, therefore, there occurred no violation of the Maintenance of Way Agreement or any other agreements when the work here involved was contracted.
All of the claimants were fully employed and under pay beginning June 23, 1969, therefore, there was no lost earnings on their part.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner contends that the Carrier violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968, National Agreement when it failed to notify the General Chairman of its plans to contract out certain work.
The Carrier contends that the work involved is not exclusively reserved to employes covered by the Maintenance of Way Agreement that it has been the practice through the years to contract such work; and that the claimants were fully employed and there was no lost earnings on their part.
We adhere to the holdings in Awards 18305 and 18306 involving the same parties and similar contentions, and for the limited purposes of Article IV of the May 17, 1968, find that the Carrier violated that Agreement by failure to give advance notice to the General Chairman of its plans to contract out the work involved. We will also adhere to those awards in holding that since claimants suffered no pecuniary loss we will deny Part 2 of the claim. See