Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37388
Docket No. SG-37217
05-3-02-3-153
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(BNSF Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF):
Claim on behalf of LI. P. Ventress, C. M. Haddad, T. J. Thibodeaux
and C. J. Hebert, for 64 hours plus skill differential to be divided
equally between the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and
Attachment 7, when it used outside contractors to perform
directional earth boring beginning on December 5 and 6, 2000, at
New Iberia and Berwick, Louisiana, and deprived the Claimants of
the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 35-010018. General Chairman's File No. 01-028-BNSF-121-T. BRS File
Case No. 11934-BNS:F."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 37388
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37217
05-3-02-3-153
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimants at all relevant times herein were Signal Foremen assigned to
Signal Gang No. 15314 with headquarters at Lafayette, Louisiana. On December 5
and 6, 2000 the Carrier utilized the services of an outside contractor to use
directional boring to install conduit to house signal cable and wires to be used for
highway grade crossings.
The Organization contends that in doing so the Carrier violated the parties'
Agreement because there was a source from which the equipment in question could
have been rented and thus, the Carrier should have rented the equipment and
trained bargaining unit employees so that they would not lose the work in question.
The Carrier denies that the source from which the Organization contends the
equipment could have been obtained was in fact available. Thus, we find that we
are faced with irreconcilable facts that preclude us from resolving the claims.
Accordingly, becuase the Organization bears the burden of proof, we are compelled
to reject the claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
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 24th day of February 2005.