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, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
This case involves a claim by the Organization that Carrier violated the Agreement when its assigned outside forces, the Holland Company, to perform welding work, i.e., intrack welds on the Fitzgerald Subdivision, beginning at approximately Mile Post ANB 763.2 and working beyond Mile Post ANB 784.4 during the period of March 25 through May 7, 1992. The Organization insists that this work belongs to Carrier's Group A Welders. Claimants are the individuals who have established and hold seniority in the Welding Subdepartment, Group A, on the Fitzgerald Subdivision of the Atlanta Division.
Carrier, on the other hand, insists that it did not violate the Agreement. It notes that Rule I - Scope does not describe the work covered by the Agreement, but simply lists the various workers covered. In Carrier's view, the Scope Rule does not make the work exclusive to the Claimants. Thus, Carrier asserts that the actual work in question (operation of an automated flash-butt welding machine) falls outside the Scope of the Agreement. Carrier also urges that the Organization failed to refute its assertion that Claimants lack the necessary skills to operate the machine in question.
Finally, Carrier contends that Claimants were not monetarily damaged on the respective dates on which the claim was made and, therefore, they are not entitled to the compensation being sought herein. Carrier notes that it is not disputed that Claimants Form 1 Award No. 32522
were on duty and under pay during the times the Organization alleges contract violations occurred. Carrier indicates that Group A Welding Subdepartment employees, like the Claimants, have the right to perform the work in question.
The record evidence demonstrates that the type of work involved here has traditionally, customarily and historically been performed by Carrier's Maintenance of Way Instructional Department Employees with the use of equipment owned or possessed by the Carrier. Rule 23 is specifically on point. It states, in relevant part:
The language of this Rule is clear and unambiguous. It clearly provides that all work recognized as Maintenance of Way welding work would be considered as being in Group A Welding Subdepartment and will be performed by employees holding seniority therein. This work includes, but is not limited to, that involved in the electric arc and/or acetylene method of welding and the making of field welds. Thus, it is clear that the making of field welds is not limited to the method of welding, and is to be performed by employees holding seniority in Group A of the Welding Subdepartment.
Also, Rule 2 - Contracting indicates that work is to be performed by employees subject to the Agreement, except "it is recognized that, in specific instances, some work that is to be performed requires special skills not possessed by the employees and the use Form I Page 4
of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier. In such instances, the Chief Engineering Officer and the General Chairman will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which the work will be performed." Here, it is undisputed that Carrier never met with the General Chairman to confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions for contracting out the work. Moreover, on the pro-perty there was no dispute whatsoever that Carrier possessed the equipment to perform the work in question and that the Claimants possessed the requisite skills and ability to do the work.
We must also note that it is unrefuted on the property that Carrier had purchased similar equipment which was used on this ,job previously. Because this assertion was not contested, we must conclude that Carrier did have the necessary equipment in question.
In all, we conclude that Carrier's assignment of the work in dispute to outside forces violated Rule 23 of the Agreement. We direct that the claim be paid as presented.
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 36 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.