Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26792
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26725
88-3-85-3-479
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Northern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without a conference
having been held as required by the October 24, 1957 Letter of Agreement
(Appendix 'F'), it assigned outside forces to perform right-of-way cleaning
work at Waverly Yard in Holland, Michigan on August 1, 1984 (System File C-TC2158/MG-4840).
2. Because of the aforesaid violation, Foreman T. Weaver and Machine
Operator G. Bosch shall each be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at their respective straight time rat
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The instant dispute claims violation of the Agreement due to an outside contractor removing wast
Holland Michigan on August 1, 1984. The Organization argues that among other
Rules, the Carrier violated Rule 59(b) which reads in pertinent part:
. . . Track Forces will perform work to which they
are entitled . . . in connection with the
maintenance, and/or removal of roadway and track
facilities, such as . . . cleaning right-of-way
Claim is that the Carrier did not advise the General Chairman on its intent to
contract out the clean-up work prior to assigning a contractor as required by
Appendix F and Article IV of the National Agreement.
Form 1 Award
No.
26792
Page 2 Docket
No.
MW-26725
88-3-85-3-479
The Carrier argues on property that this work was not Maintenance of
Way work as Track
No.
12 is not a conventional yard track. The Carrier also
contends that past practice has been to assign such work to an outside contractor at least once or t
As a preliminary point, the Claim before this Board has been amended
from notice to conference. A conference was not discussed on property and is
bd-
arre from consideration at this time. However, as we stated in Third
Division Award 26791 this "is essentially the same claim as handled on property and to that extent t
forces in violation of the Agreement.
To make a prima facie case the Organization must show with probative
evidence that its work was contracted without notice. The record shows that
Rule 59(b) reserves "cleaning right-of-way" to the employes. There is no
dispute in the record that outside forces did clean up and remove waste from
Track
No.
12. There is nothing in the record where Carrier argues that said
work did not occur on Carrier's right-of-way, but only that it was track
assigned to the Car Department. There is nothing in the Agreement before this
Board relevant to this distinction as to the assignment of track. The Organization has made its case
On merits the Claim must be sustained to the extent that no notice
was given the General Chairman before this work went to outside forces. The
Carrier maintains that removal of waste material was involved as well as
clean-up and Carrier was not equipped for such work. That may well be the
case, but the Agreement requires Maintenance of Way work to be done by Maintenance of Way Employes u
Carrier is required to first give notice to the General Chairman of its
intent. That is the central issue of the case at bar, and Carrier's failure
to give notice is a violation of the Agreement Rules which are the subject of
this Claim.
As for compensation, the record indicates that the disputed work was
done once or twice a year for ten to twelve years. It appears to have been
past practice on the property. We are not persuaded by the Organization's
arguments to the contrary. The Board will sustain the Claim, but without compensation. When the Carr
valid due to acquiescence by the Organization, the Board must deny compensation (see Third Division
Form 1 Award No. 26792
Page 3 Docket No. MW-26725
88-3-85-3-479
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. e~df - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 1988.