NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 THIRD DIVISION Award No. 29627
Docket No. MW-28330
93-3-87-3-882




(of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad
(Company (formerly the Colorado and
(Southern Railway Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





















Form 1 Award No. 29627
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28330
93-3-87-3-882
D. L. Breidert W. H. Glover
P. J. Davenport R. Miller
P. A. Morgando M. S. Gallegos
H. Patrick R. D. Garcia
M. Fonseca, Jr. L. E. Sease
C. T. Garcia B. D. Hahn
A. P. Sanchez B. Brock
W. L. Jackson T. Estroga
W. F. Harston, Jr. M. L. Williams
R. L. Cox T. C. Slater
S. L. Hammer D. R. Padilla
R. D. Merritt S. B. Hart
T. R. Million M. D. Roggenbuck
G. D. Mitchell C. L. Smith, 3rd
M. L. Peterman T. H. Sweeney
C. Williams, Jr. K. M. Wagner
J. L. Maston R. E. Jackson
T. G. Andres O. T. Marshall
D. J. Bohling A. Martinez, Jr.
P. J. Dunne E. Torrez
A. E. Martinez C. W. Morris
M. R. Smith E. L. Arasmith
R. Nanney S. G. Gayman
F. L. Alicea D. E. Kahl
G. A. Garcia J. B. Mulhern
G. K. Kirchmer M. M. Waida
P. Mecado, Jr. K. J. Benaglio
A. Smalls, Jr."

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 employe 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.
Form 1 Award No. 29627
Page 3 Docket No. MW-28330
93-3-87-3-882

On April 10, 1986, the carrier sent the following notice to the General Chairman:



Subsequently, a conference was held pursuant to a request by the Organization. The following letter of Agreement was the result of the conference:




Form 1 Award No. 29627
Page 4 Docket No. MW-28330
93-3-87-3-882

Significantly, the Parties did not arrive at an understanding concerning the construction of the "shoo-fly" track. As a result of the Organization's belief that the work was covered by the scope clause of the Agreement, the instant claim was filed.


The Board has many times been faced with similar, and occasionally identical, circumstances. Generally, the Board has held that performance by outside contractors of work of the kind involved here does not violate the scope clause if it is not performed at the instigation, is not performed for the benefit, is not done at the expense and is not under the control of the carrier. See Third Division Awards 24078 and 23422. There are Awards which do not subscribe to this approach, but they are in the minority.


In this case, the project was clearly at the instigation and completely for the benefit and at the expense of the City. If the City had not wanted a bridge constructed to avoid train traffic blockage there would have been no need for the shoo-fly track. The last criteria is control. It is obvious that the Carrier had input, as is natural, into the project. However, its input was far from control and its participation was not designed to avoid its obligations under the Agreement.






      Claim denied.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


Attest:
ancy J. er - Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of April 1993.