Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38195
Docket No. MW-38988
07-3-05-3-432
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division -
( IBT Rail Conference
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside
forces (Swanson Railroad Contractors) to perform
Maintenance of Way Track Sub-Department work
(build/install switch panels, install ties, make boutet welds,
install rail and related work) in the Chicago Yards on May 29,
June 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 2004 instead
of Track Department employes (System File BMWE-510 NRP).
(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to
give the General Chairman proper advance written notice of its
plans to contract out said work or make a good-faith attempt to
reach an understanding concerning said contracting as
required by Rule 24.
(3) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Parts (1) and/or
(2) above, all Track Department employes with an active
employment relationship during the above-referenced period
shall now `. . . be paid an equal amount of the total man hours
expended by the Contractor in perform this work.***"'
Form 1. Award No. 38195
Page 2 Docket No. MW-38988
07-3-05-3-432
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
invntveft herein
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
By letter dated February
o,
2004, the Carrier notified the Organization of its
intent to use an outside contractor for work in the Chicago Yards. The work
identified to be contracted out was installation of 15 turnouts and the rebuilding of
8500 feet of yard track, including rails, ties and ballast. Although the record is not
precisely clear, the evidence shows that the Carrier and the Organization met on
several occasions after the Carrier's notice was given and up through March 10,
2004 concerning the Carrier's stated intent to contract out the work. However,
agreement was not reached and the
Carripr
rnntrartPd not tha
work Nn
crnna
covered employees were furloughed as a result of the contracting of the work.
This claim followed protesting the contracting of work on the dates set forth
Zri
Lhe cla,
The Carrier contracted out work covered by the Scope Rule (Rule 1). The
work described in the claim and in the record is typical work performed by
Maintenance of Way, forces.
However, the governing Rule is Rule 24:
"1. In the event the Carrier plans to contract out work within the
scope of the schedule agreement, the Chief Engineer shall
notify the General Chairman in writing as far in advance of the
V===t ~ Award No. 38195
Page 3 Docket No. MW-38988
07-3-05-3-432
date of the contracting transaction as is practicable and in any
event not less than 15 days prior thereto.
2. If the General Chairman reanertc
a meptincr to rlicrnac mattprc
relating to the said contracting transaction, the Chief Engineer
or his representative shall promptly meet with him for that
purpose. The Chief Engineer or his representative and the
s-_.._....e ~ "a-rriiar,
or
11 A 111J
repreNelltatlve Sllall MaKe a
gOOQ
faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning said
contracting, but if no understanding is reached the Chief
Engineer may nevertheless proceed with said contracting, and
the General Chairman may file and progress claims in
connection therewith.
3. Nothing in this Rule shall affect the existing rights of either
party in connection with contracting out. Its purpose is to
require the Carrier to give advance notice and, if requested, to
meet with the General Chairman to discuss and if possible
rnanh ~n nnrlnrotnnrh,.a, 4i ol ,~s,.*7.
~ ,d.
.a= .a.a m r.uuau~
an
cvrartca,uvu
auct cvrttu.
4. (1) Amtrak may not contract out work normally performed
by an employee in a bargaining unit covered by a contract
between a labor organization and Amtrak or a rail carrier that
provided intercity rail passenger transportation on October 30,
1970, if contracting out results in the layoff of an employee in
the bargaining unit.
(2) This subsection does not apply to food and beverage
services provided on trains of Amtrak."
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Scope Rule, the Carrier has the right to
contract out work. If the Carrier did not have that right, Rule 24 would have no
meaning.
The Carrier met its obligations under Rule 24. Timely advance notice was
given to the Organization by the Carrier of its intent to contract out the work and
Form 1 Award No. 38195
Page 4 Docket No. MW-38988
07-3-05-3-432
the parties met on several occasions in an effort to reach agreement concerning the
Carrier's stated intent. Further, no employee was furloughed as a result of the
contracting out of the work in dispute. The parties' inability to reach agreement in
their discussions concerning the Carrier's decision to contract out work does not
amount to a showing by the Organization that the Carrier failed to meet its
obligations under Rule 24 or any other requirements as being indicative of bad faith
on the Carrier's part.
Based on the above, the Organization has not carried its burden. The claim
will therefore be denied.
AWARD
%C
-!aim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of May 2007.