This is a contracting out dispute in which the Board reaches the following conclusion. The Carrier provided proper notice by letter dated August 24, 1992 of its intent to install chain link fence on the National Docks Secondary. Proper discussions were held and the fencing work was subsequently contracted out.
The Organization alleges that the fence installation work performed by the outside contractor was protected by the Scope of the Agreement and the April 24, 1989 Letter. The Organization argues that the Claimants were fully qualified to perform this routine fencing project, which has been customarily and historically performed by the employees.
The Carrier denied on the property that it violated the Agreement. The Carrier defends its contracting out based upon its need to comply with the prompt requirements of the municipal government. The Carrier also points out that there were no furloughed employees and the 1989 Fencing Agreement contemplates emergency work. The Carrier argues it is not required to hire new employees for fence installation. It argues that its action is analogous to that decided by Third Division Award 29204.
The Board finds no support for the Carrier's position in the on-property record. Whatever the requirements of the local government's Engineering Department, they are not in the record of this case. There was no evidence of any emergency which would have permitted contracting without the prior notice of August 24, 1992 and which didn't begin for over two months. This is not a demonstrated emergency or an action done promptly. The Organization noted that the full National Docks Project dismantled and replaced piers and overhead railroad track. After completion the Carrier then installed fencing as "finishing work on this part of the project." The Carrier's final denial included an "aside" comment that it was "not required to piecemeal work," but there is no evidence in this claim that the "aside" has any merit whatsoever.
The Board has analyzed all the Awards submitted by the parties in reaching its decision on merits and remedy. We can not find sufficient clarity in Third Division Award 29204 to consider its circumstances and urgency analogous to these instant facts. In the state of this record, the Board finds that the Carrier improperly contracted out work and the claim is sustained. Form 1 Award No. 32190
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.