Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32994
Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:




Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 2 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185
from Mile Post 12.5 at Brainard to Mile Post 75.15 at Central City,
beginning June 27,1993 and continuing (System File N-17/940001).



Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 3 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185
Nebraska Division including the Albion Branch from Mile Post 0.10
at Oconee to Mile Post 34.6 at Albion, the Cedar Rapids Branch
from Mile Post 0.13 at Genoa to Mile Post 44.5 at Spalding, the
Norfolk Branch from Mile Post 2.6 at Columbus to Mile Post 48.6
at Norfolk, the Ord Branch from Mile Post 0.48 at Grand Island to
Mile Post 61.3 at Ord and the Stromsburg Branch from Mile Post
12.5 at Brainard to Mile Post 75.15 at Central City, beginning June
27, 1993 and continuing (System File N-20/940003).



Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 4 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185
straight time and overtime hours expended by the outside forces in
the performance of the work described in Part (1).




Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 5 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185
total number of straight time and overtime hours expended by the
outside forces in the performance of the work described in Part (5).



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, 1934.


This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




These claims arose when the Nebraska Central Railroad ("NCR") began railroad operations on five of Carrier's branch lines on June 27, 1993. As a general matter, the Organization's objection contends that Carrier improperly contracted out scope covered work. Carrier, on the other hand, maintained that the track in question was leased to NCR.


A procedural issue is present as a threshold matter . All but one of the claims was dated and received by Carrier on August 26, 1993. The remaining claim was dated October 1, 1993. Carrier contends all of the claims are untimely. Rule 49 requires that all claims must be presented in writing ". . . within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based." Because August 26, 1993 was the 60th day from the date of the occurrence, none of the claims was properly presented within the

Form I Award No. 32994
Page 6 Docket No. MW-32371


allowable time frame. The Organization, to the contrary, maintains that the 60th day is properly within the filing window.


We do not find that the prior Awards cited by the parties have established precedent regarding this precise issue: Is the 60th day within or without the claim presentation period specified by Rule 49? In our view of customary parlance, Rule 49 establishes a period of 60 calendar days after the date of the occurrence in which claims may be presented. We find, therefore, that August 26, 1993 was properly included as being within that period. The claims filed that date are not untimely. The same is not true of the claim dated October 1, 1993. Hence, it must be denied.


According to the Organization's Submission, the remaining substantive issue ". . . boils down to one (1) question. That question is; Did Carrier prove its affirmative defense that it had leased the track in question to the NCR?"


The controversy arose because the Carrier refused to provide the Organization a complete copy of the lease despite several requests from the General Chairman. It maintained that other portions of the lease were proprietary. In addition, it noted that no Agreement provision required it to furnish complete copies of leases to the Organization. Accordingly, in addition to its many assertions that a valid lease existed, Carrier provided only an excerpt of the lease along with several other related documents. The excerpt dealt with the maintenance of the trackage in question. In its April 5, 1995 letter, the Organization acknowledged that the excerpt did support the Carrier's contention that Carrier had no control over the disputed work and that NCR was not receiving financial and/or barter allowances for services provided to Carrier.


The narrow evidentiary question, thus presented, is this: Is furnishing a complete copy of a lease the only possible way to prove the existence of a valid lease? Absent an Agreement provision requiring such action. we must find in the negative. On this record, we find the validity of the lease has been sufficiently proven. In addition to the excerpt previously noted, the Carrier also provided the Organization with the following:



Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 7 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185
3. An employee newspaper article describing NCR's operations under the
lease.
4. Another letter to the affected General Chairmen regarding NCR's filing
for a non-carrier exemption with the Interstate Commerce Commission
("ICC").
5. The ICUs Notice of Exemption on Finance Docket 32290. These papers
specifically reference the fact that Carrier and NCR had executed a lease
and operating agreement effective June 27, 1993. The summary of the
transaction listed, by specific mile post numbers, the limits of the leased
track on the five branches. The mile post numbers match identically with
the limits specified in the claims.
6. The ICC Notice of Exemption on Finance Docket 32290 specifically states,
in pertinent part, as follows:
"This exemption is proper under 49 CFR
1150.31 because it involves the operation by a
new carrier [Nebraska] over an active
(nonabandoned) line owned by and leased from
an existing carrier [UP]."

A long line of prior Awards of the Board recognize that work performed by a lessee does not violate Scope or reservation of work Rules. Nor does such work conflict with restrictions on the contracting of work. See, for example, Third Division Awards 14641, 21045, 29515, 29568, 29581 and 29601. Accordingly, the claims that survived Carrier's procedural objection must be denied.




    Claim denied.

Form 1 Award No. 32994
Page 8 Docket No. MW-32371
98-3-95-3-185

                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of December 1998.