This dispute arose when the Carrier contracted with Davis Construction Company to remove an asphalt driveway at the Carrier's Uceta Yard, Tampa, Florida, and replace it with concrete. On September 25, 1990, the Organization filed a claim asserting this work had historically been performed by M of W employees and that the Carrier's actions violated the provisions of Rule 2. The Board notes the on-property record establishes that Rule 2 was the only Rule cited by the organization in advancing this claim.
On January 8, 1991, the Carrier denied the claim asserting the work involved does not accrue exclusively to M of W employees and is not subject to Rule 2 of the Agreement. The assertion was not refuted on the property.
Similar disputes between the parties concerning the assignment of such work have been before this Board and denied because the Organization failed to show that the work in question is reserved to its members by historical custom and practice. See Third Division Awards 26997, 26225, 25870, and 25090. Herein, the organization failed to meet its burden, and we shall deny the claim accordingly.
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT
TO
AWARD 29973, DOCKET MW-30122
(Referee McAllister)
Without going into the history of contracting out of work disputes involving concrete work between this Carrier and the Maintenance of Way Employes and the precedent established, to make a determination on a notice issue (conferring and reaching an understanding with the General Chairman) by ruling that the work does not accrue exclusively to Maintenance of Way employes is contrary to the precedent of the Third Division. The Majority demonstrated its urgency to simply deny a claim by relying on four awards which dealt with "class/craft" disputes where the Board has used "exclusively" as a reason to deny claims. It is a travesty that the Majority and, in particular, this Arbitrator would not take the time to review the awards used as precedent to deny the claim.
Obviously, the award is illogical and not based on the precedent cited. Consequently, it is palpably erroneous and of no precedential value. Therefore, I dissent.