NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-24080
Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Referee
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Motherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned excavation
work in connection with the installation of a 'Drop Table' in Building LD-35
at Milwaukee, Wisconsin to outside forces on October 3, 4, 5, 16 and 17, 1979
(System File C#118/D-2390).
(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the National Agreement of
May 17, 1968 when it did not afford the General Chairman of a conference prior to
the contracting transaction to discuss matters relating to the work referred to
in Part (1) above.
(3)
As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, Equipment Operator
D. A. Leis and M. Seider each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an
equal proportionate share of the forty-seven (47) hours expended by outside
forces."
OPINION OF BOARD: Under date of September 18, 1979 and subject of "Contracting
Out", the Carrier advised the Organization as follows:
"This will serve as notice of the Carrier's intent to
subcontract work in connection with the installation of
a 100-ton drop table in the north end of Building ID
35
at
our Shops in Milwaukee. The work to be done relative to
this project includes considerable excavation, carpentry,
roofing, concrete, brick wall alterations, demolition, track
work, erection of metal buildings, etc., along with heating,
plumbing, electric service, lighting, piping, relocation of
heavy machinery and equipment, etc. It is the desire of the
Carrier and intent to progress as much of this work with
railroad personnel as conditions permit. In all probability,
it will be necessary to contract such items of work for which
the railroad does not have adequately qualified personnel or
necessary equipment to perform the work required. Such work
will involve the relocation of heavy machinery, erection of
metal buildings, operate excavation and hauling equipment,
alteration to brick walls, plumbing (where licensed plumber
is required), and a small portion of the heating and
electrical work. It is obvious that the work in question
involves various crafts and is not limited to BMWE.
Award Number
24281
Page
2
Docket Number
NEW-24080
As previously indicated, it is the Carrier's intent to
progress as much of the work as possible with railroad
personnel. It is obvious, however, that due to lack of
specialized equipment and the fact that Carrier employees
do lack sufficient expertise to perform segments of the
work in question, the Carrier does have the right to
contract the work.
The Carrier's right to subcontract this work has been
established by past practice and numerous Board Awards."
According to the Organization, work on this project commenced on
October
3, 1979 -- 15
days later.
Carrier's letter was in compliance with Article IV of the May
17,
1968
National Agreement, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
"ARTICIE IV - CONTRACTING OVr
In the event a carrier plans to contract out work within
the scope of the applicable schedule agreement, the carrier
shall notify the General Chairman of the organization
involved in writing as far in advance of the date of the
contracting transaction as is practicable and in any event
not less than
15
days prior thereto. -
If the General Chairman, or his representative, requests a
meeting to discuss matters relating to the said contracting
transaction, the designated representative of the carrier
shall promptly meet with him for that purpose. Said carrier
and organization representatives shall make a good faith
attempt to reach an understanding concerning said contracting,
but if no understanding is reached the carrier may nevertheless proceed with said contracting, and t
file and progress said claims in connection therewith
..."
The Agreement clearly requires the Carrier to discuss such proposed
subcontracting "If the General Chairman
...
requests" (emphasis added. In this
instance, according to the record before the Board, the Organization requested
such a meeting, and it was held on the date requested by the Organization.
As to the excavation work specified in the claim, such was included in
the Carrier's letter of September
18, 1979.
The claim concerns a small initial
portion of the entire,project. The Carries is on firm ground in assuming it
need not fragment work of this obviously large scale and complex nature. Award
No.
20899,
citing many previous awards, states:
"In the latter context, the fact that Carrier's signal employes
may have been used in the past to perform work, in whole or in
part, in connection with a major installation, does not
prejudice Carrier's right under the specific provisions of the
Scope Rule to contract out similar installations in the future.
without merit.
Award Number 24281
Docket Number MW-24080
Secondly, we find no evidence in the record that the disputed
work could in fact have reasonably been segregated from the
whole construction project and assigned to Claimants; nor is
there any Rule in the Agreement requiring Carrier to make
such fragmentation of the work."
The Carrier proceeded correctly under Article IV, and the claim is
Page
3
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the 4iole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
By
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois,
this 31st day of March 1983.