NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-22865
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way -Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad company
STATE3·EMIT OF
CLALM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when outside
forces were used to
(a) perform remodeling work in connection
with the construction of a Roller Bearing
Reclamation Room in Building CD-9 at
Milwaukee, Wisconsin and to
(b) paint the interior of said Roller
Bearing Reclamation Room.
(System Files G#`#112/D-2096, C7122/D-2096, Q=,'134/D-2121 enZ C,L133/D-2110 ).
(2) The claimants- each be allowed pay at their
respective straight time rates for an equal proportionate share of the three
hundred ninety-seven (397) man-hours expended by outside forces in the performance of the work refer
forces in the performance of the work referred to in Part (1) (b) hereof.
*The claimants are:
G. Pre11 A. C. Sandberg
J. Ruhland G. Pscheidt
M. Machalk D. Bowman
D. Bode P. Ziarkowski
A. C. Schulz E. W. Phillips
J. L. Peloza J. W. Keller
G. L. Wieting :C. W. Wein
W. J. Weber
The Carrier has declined this claim."
Award .";umber
2310
Page 2
Docket Number MW-22865
OP nTION OF HOARD: The Employes contend that the Carrier contracted out
certain remodeling and painting work in connection with
the construction of a Roller Bearing Reclamation Room. In its contentions,
the Employes assert that the work consisted of erecting concrete block
partitions, removing windows and doors, closing openings, installing
suspended ceilings, painting and related work; which work required
431
man-hours to complete.
The Organization insists that said work is within the purview
of the existing Agreement, and in this regard it cites pertinent portions
of Rule
46:
~~(d) An employe assigned to constructing,
repairing, maintaining or dismantling bridges,
buildings 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.
(e) An employe assigned to cleaning or preparing incidental to mixing, blending, sizing
and applying paint, calcimine or other wood preservatives either by brush, spray or other methods,
or glazing, will be designated as a painter."
In addition, the Carrier gave notice under Article IV of the May
17, 1963
N1
ational Agreement of plans to subcontract which, the Organization asserts,
is evidence that the work properly belonged to the vnployes.
Finally, the Employes insist that any allegation that they were
not qualified and available to perform the work is a matter which must be
proved - and not merely alleged - by the Carrier.
The Carrier concedes that notice of intent to subcontract was given,
but it points out that the work to be per'ormed involved concrete block partition walls and various
:eating, etc.. as well as various steel work which involved an entire constriction project obviously
H~ployes involved. Thus, under the circumstances, the Oarrier takes the
position that it has the right to contract an entire project when its forces
are not sufficiently qualified to perform all phases of the required project.
2tztad differently, the Carrier asserts that it is not necessary for it to
fragment a nrolect or to segregate certian work. In this regard, it cites
bird Division Award
20399.
Award Number 23102 Page
3
Docket Number LAW-22665
It is also noted - by Carrier - that the work involved which is
made the subject of the claim presented, was only a small portion of the
entire construction project; which further emphasizes the fact that it
is unnecessary to fragment the work so as to accommodate the Employes*
Without in any manner, diminishing the skills of the D-nployes
who rave presented this claim, the Board is of the view that the Carrier
has raised a valid defense to the
bulk
of the claim, when it pointed out
on the property that it did not have " sufficiently qualified person-
nel to perform ail. phases of the o-rer-all project which required the
combined and/or coordinated services of qualified personnel of various
crafts to properly progress the construction
..."
The portion of Rule
46
relied upon by the Carrier refers to constructing, etc., structures as
a "bridge and building carpenter and/or mechanic." The implication of
that language being that the Employe had certain basic skills, however we
do not find any refutation on the property of the assertions made by tae
Carrier as to the necessity to integrate many portions of the project and
t: us, it would appear that Rule
46,
as cited by the Employes, is not the
type of rule which would preclude the integrated services necessary to
construct a room such as is under consideration.
However, we have noted that the portion of the Arpreement dealing
with painting is contained in a separate portion of Rule 46. It may be that
under certain circumstances, painting is such an inter-related and integrated
item. of work that it could not reasonably be separated and performed by
Carrier's employes. However, this record does not substantiate any such a
potential de:, eanse. The record
before this
Board does not suggest that
the Carrier could not have contracted the bulk
n.°
she work and still,
;'-"out d--sturbing any inner-relationship o° work, permit the Employes
to perform the labor of painting.
Again, it is =of our function to second-Faesa the Carrier is
t^is regard, however, b=cause the painting is in a separate rrovlsion of
t"e ru=e, and because there is nothing in the record to suggest a necessity
-for =.w.--relation of the painting as there would have been for hanging doors
on walls, etc., we are inclined to sustain that portion of the claim dealing
with the painting of the interior of the Roller Bearing Recla-~tion Room, as
set fort-: in T-ea (1) (b) of the
Statement of
Claim. Accordingly, we sustain
the monetary portion of Item 2 as it relates to painting
involved.
Award Number 23102 cage
h
Docket Number bfr1-22365 .
v1.MINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Ca-rier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
res=Cectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved J,me 21,
1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
a-at the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained as it relates to painting of the interior of
the Roller Bearing Reclamation Room.
NATIONAL RAIIRCAD ADJUTSTi4ENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Ececuzive Secretary
Datea at Chicago, Minois, this 15th day of December 1;30.
