Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28788
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27387
91-3-86-3-629
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Eastern Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside
forces to clean the engine pits at Miller Yards on August 13, 14 and 15, 1985
(System File MW-85-122/435-63-A).
(2) The Carrier also violated Article 36 of the Agreement when it
did not give the General Chairman advance notice of its intention to contract
said work.
(3) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, B&B Foreman W. I.
Wheeler, Assistant Foreman D. J. Zhanel, Carpenters A. R. Brown, Jr., B. B.
Brown, J. E. Trantham, K. R. Ballard and Helpers B. F. Swearengin and G. G.
Gilmore shall each be allowed twenty-four (24) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates.
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 employes 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 Organization alleges that on August 13, 14, and 15, 1985, an
outside concern, Gentry Holmes, cleaned the engine pits at Miller Yards in
Dallas, Texas. According to the Organization, employees of Gentry Holmes
expended 192 man-hours performing the engine pit cleaning work, which has
traditionally and historically been performed by Bridge and Building Department employees.
Form 1 Award
No.
28788
Page 2 Docket
No.
MW-27387
91-3-86-3-629
The Organization contends in its Submission that Carrier violated
Articles 1 (Scope), 2 (Seniority) and 21 (Rates of Pay), which read in
pertinent part as follows:
"ARTICLE 1
SCOPE
SECTION
1. These rules govern rates of pay,
hours of service and working conditions of all
employees in the Maintenance of Way and Structures
Department (not including supervisory forces above
the rank of foreman) represented by the Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employes as follows:
Roadway Track Department:
Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Apprentice Foremen, Laborers, Highway Crossing Watchmen
and/or Flagmen, Watchmen at Non-interlocking
Crossings, and Lamp Tenders, Laborer Driver.
Bridge and Building Department:
Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Mechanics,
Carpenters, Painters, Bridge Watchmen,
Helpers, Laborers and Pumpers.
Welding Department:
Foremen, Welders, Welder Helpers, Grinder
Operators, Grinder Helpers, Assistant Foremen
and Lead Welders.
Roadway Machine Department:
Machine Operators and Helpers, Machine and
Tool Watchmen.
Wood Preserving Department:
Foremen, Machinists, Machinist Helper, Welders, Machine Operators, Laborers and Tie
Inspectors.
Form 1 Award No. 28788
Page 3 Docket No. MW-27387
91-3-86-3-629
ARTICLE 2
SENIORITY RULES
SECTION 1. (a) Except as otherwise provided,
seniority begins at the time the employee's pay
starts on the position to which assigned following
bulletining of the vacancy.
Employees temporarily employed or promoted to a
position of higher rank than laborer, shall not
establish a seniority date unless assigned thereto
following bulletining of vacancy as provided in
Article 8.
(b) Seniority of laborers will begin on the date
their pay starts after they have been in continuous
service for a period of sixty (60) consecutive calendar days from the date employed.
(c) Rights accruing to employees under their
seniority entitle them to consideration for positions
in accordance with their relative length of service
as hereinafter provided.
,t
x
ARTICLE 21
RATE OF PAY
SECTION 1. The carrier will compile a new rate
sheet each time the rates of pay change on the individual positions listed, including the basic rate
and the rate including the cost-of-living allowance.
A copy of the rate sheets will be furnished to the
general chairman.
r
Bridge 6 Building Department:
Foreman, B&B, Houston Terminal
Foreman, Other B&B and Painter
Foreman, Pile Driver
Foreman, Steel Bridge Gang (Construction
Work)
Foreman, 16-Man Differential -- add
Form 1 Award No. 28788
Page 4 Docket No. MW-27387
91-3-86-3-629
Assistant Foreman, B&B and Painter
Watchman, All Roadway Tools
Mechanic, Class A (Having 2 or more years
railroad experience in their class of work)
Mechanic, Class B (Having less than 2 years
railroad experience in their class of work)
Helper, Mechanics, in MofW 5 B&B Department."
In addition, the organization maintains that B&B employees on the
Dallas Division have been performing the work in question for many years, as
evidenced by the attachment to its letter dated May 14, 1986, in which the
Claimants state that they "have perform(ed) these duties in the past." Under
these circumstances, the Carrier was obligated to notify the General Chairman
of its intent to contract out the work in accordance with Article 36 and the
December 11, 1981 Letter of Agreement.
Carrier contends that the work of cleaning the engine pits is not, by
Agreement or practice, reserved exclusively to employees represented by the
Organization. It is the Carrier's position that the pits have been cleaned by
contractors, by mechanical department employees and others in the past. Therefore, there was no requ
contract out the work.
This Board has carefully reviewed the record of this case and the
precedent Awards submitted by the parties. We are compelled to conclude that
the Claim must fail, for several reasons. First, the Organization relied upon
the Scope Rule for the first time in its Submission before this Board, and
therefore it may not properly be considered. It is, after all, quite wellestablished at this point t
Second Division Award 11077. Parties to disputes before this Board are not
permitted to mend or vary their claims after they reach the Board on appeal,
and therefore, any consideration of the Scope Rule is now barred.
Second, we note that even if the Scope Rule were to be considered, it
is general in nature and neither this nor any of the other provisions of the
Agreement relied upon by the Organization vests in the Claimants the exclusive
and unequivocal right to perform the work of cleaning pits. In order to prevail in such circumstance
Unfortunately, the Organization's case falters on that crucial point.
Carrier and the Organization have raised competing arguments as to who has
traditionally performed the disputed work. The Organization's evidence that
Claimants have performed the work in the past is not sufficiently specific or
probative to meet its burden of proof on this particular point.
Form 1 Award No. 28788
Page 5 Docket No. MW-27387
91-3-86-3-629
Finally, in the absence of evidence that Claimants were entitled to
perform the work, we find that there was no obligation upon the Carrier to
provide the General Chairman with advance notice. The requisite notification
is required only where the planned contracting out is within the scope of the
applicable Agreement. Since that has not been demonstrated herein, the Claim
must be denied in its entirety.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
de-sw'
Nancy J r~- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of May 1991.