PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when outside forces were used to perform clearing and ditching work between Sheldon and Houston, Texas (Liberty Road to Greens Bayou) August 18 to October 1, 1980 (System File MW-80-162/296-5 A).

(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, System Machine Operator Elmer Ermis be allowed two hundred fifty-six (256) hours of pay at his straight time rate."









In July of 1980 Carrier wrote the General Chairman advising him of its desire "to clear and grub the right-of-way and improve operating drainage from Liberty Road to Greens Bayou ... This property lies between our main line and Hwy. U.S. 90." The letter also advised that there were no machine operators

                      Docket Number MW-2-1 4


on furlough available to perform the work. The General Chairman by letter dated 6 days after the original letter advised, "we cannot agree to allow the carrier to perform this work by the use of contractors" as the work has been historically performed by the Maintenance of Way Department. For these and other reasons the letter went on to advise the carrier the Brotherhood was "not agreeable to the contracting of our work" and asked for a conference. while the matter was under discussion the work was performed by an outside contractor from August 18 to October 1, 1980. It being the Carrier's position it had no knowledge of the contractor performing the work until also asserted the work was not of any benefit to it.

The whole record seems clear that the work which was performed was within the scope of the agreement; that the claimant was available and equipment was available to perform it. The work was performed at a time and in a place where the record shows Carrier contemplated having the work done on its right of way. The Carrier cites cases, among them Fourth Division Award 3837 stating a Carrier:

        "cannot be held liable for actions taken by another where agreement or at least acquiescence on its part cannot be demonstrated."


It seems that reasonable men reading this record would conclude there was at least acquiescence. The burden of proof of rule violation was sustained.

        FINDINGS: 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 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 aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained.

                      Award Number 24383 Page 3

                      Docket Number rbI-241F24


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMBNT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of May 1983.