Form I NATION kl. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
1111111) DIVISION
.award No. 31927
Docket No. NIW-31502
97-3-93-3-506
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)
STATE>IENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside
forces (Lewis Weldint,, Company) to perform ;Maintenance of Way work
(built switches from switch components supplied by the Carrier from the
North Little Rock Pancl Plant, North Little Rock, Arkansas and work
incidental thereto) on Nlarch 20 and April 1, 1992.
(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier assigned
outside forces (Lewis 1Velding Company) to perform Maintenance of Way
work (built switches from switch components supplied by the Carrier from
the North Little Rock Panel Plant, North Little Rock, Arkansas and work
incidental thereto) on May 15, 1992.
(3) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National
Agreement when it failed to furnish the General Chairman with advance
written notice of its intention to contract out said work.
(4) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (3)
above, the members of Gangs 9415 and 9416 listed below shall each be
allowed sixty-four (64) hours' pay at their respective time and one-half
rates.
Form l Award \'o.
31927
Paee'_ Docket No.
NIW-31502
97-3-93-3-506
(5) As a consequence of the % iolations referred to in Parts (2) and/or
(3)
abo%e. the members" of Gangs 9415 and 9416 listed below shall each be
allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective time and one-half rates.
" S. T. Crump T. L. Fisher
J. O. \iswonger J. A. Tippet
C. A. Barnes R. L. Blackmon
S. D. Cline B. S. Emmeriing
P. J. Mahoney E. R. Parker
F. I1. Pentecost. Jr. R. L. Morrison
.).
A.
Alexander C. Bucklev
T. Nl. McGhee R. L. Patterson
W. A. McGhee L. W. Dreher
C. II. Burrows R. E. Ball
A. J. Dixon J. E. Henry
B. J. If enson S. D. Rhodes
P. D. Harton J. F. Adams
B. G. Smith R. D. Body
'''' C. Diaxon T. L. Fisher
J. O. Nis%onger J. A. Tippet
C. A. Barnes R. L. Blackmon
S. D. Cline B. S. Emmerling
P. J. `lahonev E. R. Parker
F. H. Pentecost. Jr. R. L. Morrison
J. A. Alexander C. Buckley
T. M. McGhee R. L. Patterson
W. A. McGhee L. W. Dreher
C. H. Burrows
R. E. Ball
A. J. Dixon J. E. Henry
B. J. Henson S. D. Rhodes
P. D. Harton J. F. Adams
B. G.
Smith
R. D. Body"
Form I Award No. 31927
Page 3
DOCkLt
No. NIW-31502
97-3-93-3-506
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 193.1.
This Division of tltc.adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute «ere ;riven due notice of hearing thereon.
All Claimants in these two claims are employed at Carrier's Panel Plant in North
Little Rock, Arkansas, which is part of the former Missouri Pacific territory. It is
undisputed that the assembled switch panels in question were not returned for use within
this territory. Rather, the finished panels were acquired by the Union Pacific proper
and former NIKT territories.
Carrier's primary defense was that the disputed work was outside of the
jurisdiction of the former Missouri Pacific Agreement.
Prior Awards of this Board have held that Carrier may not contract out scopecovered assembly of its
the same property. Other Awards have consistently recognized the rights of carriers to
purchase finished products where both the components and the assembly work have
been provided by outside vendors. See for example, Third Division Awards 23023,
28561, and 28195.
No Awards which deal with the narrow set of circumstances in dispute here have
been cited.
For purposes of Agreement administration, merged railroad properties often
retain their separate identities and collectively bargained rights. There is no
dispute
that such is the case here. Given this background, it is clear that the disputed work was
not work for the property within the jurisdiction of the Agreement covering Claimants.
Form I .award Yo. 31927
Page 4 Docket No. NIW-31502
97-3-93-3-506
The assembly work was, in practical effect, being performed for a different railroad. In
%iew of this. we must conclude,
on
this record, that the scope rights of the covered
employees did not extend beyond the loading and outbound shipment of the component
materials off the property. To find otherwise would conflict with the well settled body
of precedent recognizing the rights of discrete carriers to acquire finished products.
Given the foregoing considerations. we find that these claims must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimantls) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March 1997.