Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29037
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28637
91-3-88-3-487
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:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when outside forces were used to
perform painting work, i.e., preparation of surface, mixing, blending, sizing
and applying of paint, on the first floor of the Headquarters Building at
Omaha, Nebraska, beginning August 12, 1987 (System File M-643/871117).
(2) As a consequence of the afore-stated violation, Group 5 Bridge
and Building Subdepartment Painter R. J. Cronican shall be allowed pay at his
First Class Group 5 Painter rate for the number of man-hours expended by the
outside forces performing the afore-described work beginning August 12, 1987
and continuing."
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 Carrier served notice by letter dated April 21, 1987, of its
intent to remodel the Omaha Headquarters Building. In further correspondence,
the Carrier maintained that the number of employees could not complete the
work within the existing time constraints. The Organization disputed the
right of the Carrier to contract out the work, arguing that the Carrier was
violating Rule 52.
Rule 52 contains various conditions related to contracting out.
Among these are the following provisions applicable to our decision:
Form 1 Award No. 29037
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28637
91-3-88-3-487
"(a) By agreement work customarily performed by
employes covered under this Agreement may be let to
contractors
...
only provided that
...
[conditions
listed].
(b) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect
prior and existing rights and practices of either
party in connection with contracting out
....
(d) Nothing contained in this rule shall impair the
Company's right to assign work not customarily performed by employes covered by this Agreement to ou
The Carrier argued on the property that the work performed by outside
contractors was not work which was customarily performed by the employees as
per Section (a) of the Rule. It argued that painting was sot within the Scope
of the Agreement and not work performed historically, customarily and exclusively by employees repre
painting had been historically contracted out and was therefore protected as a
Carrier right by Sections (b) and (d) of the Rule. In regard to the last
point, the Carrier provides evidence of record dating from 1924 that it has
contracted out painting for more than sixty-four years.
The Scope Rule is a general Rule and the on-property record is conclusive that the work has not
letters submitted by B&B Painters do not refute the Carrier's evidence that it
utilized outside forces for decades to perform work which included painting.
The Organization's rebuttal on the property of the sixty-four year record,
including the point that the Omaha Headquarters was painted by outside contractors only three times
this dispute that proof has been presented by the Carrier that outside forces
historically painted buildings, including the Headquarters Building. This
probative evidence removes this work from that which the Carrier is restricted
from contracting out and is required to give advance notice. The fact that
the Carrier gave advance notice is of no consequence as it was not required to
do so in these circumstances.
We are forced to conclude from a review of over two hundred instances
of contracting out painting, that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
A careful review of all of the Organization's arguments and evidence fails to
convincingly show language, practice, or facts to prove a Carrier violation.
In the facts at bar the Carrier had the right to contract out the work of
painting the Omaha Headquarters Building. We must deny the Claim (Third
Division Awards 28610, 28850, 28558).
Form 1 Award No. 29037
Page 3 Docket No. MW-28637
91-3-88-3-487
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: y
Nancy J.4
r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October 1991.