The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Brian Clauss when award was rendered.
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 Booard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Organization claims that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it used a contractor for snow removal work from Midnight to 10:00 A.M. on February 6, 2002. Initially, the Carrier argues a procedural point - that the claim should be dismissed or at least denied in part because the claim presented to the Board is materially different than the claim presented to the Carrier on the property. Specifically, the Carrier contends that the allegation of improper notice of subcontracting was not included in the original claim. The Organization counters that the Carrier was on notice through citation to the applicable Rules violated.
The original claim was presented in a letter dated March 8, 2002, which provided in pertinent part:
The Board reviewed the presented claim before the Board and the claim presented on the property. The Board notes that the purpose of a claim is to apprise the Carrier of the nature of the matter with sufficient specificity so that the Carrier can reply.
Here, the claim presented on the property claims a violation of seniority when a contractor was used for snow and salt work. There is no mention of improper notice of subcontracting. The claim letter contained a number of Rule numbers and Agreements. However, a general recitation of numerous Rule numbers and Agreements, absent more, is insufficient to place the Carrier on notice that an allegation of improper subcontracting notice was part of the claim.
There is a material difference in these two claims and the additional portions of the claim presented to the Board, and not presented in the original claim on the property, will be disregarded.
On the merits, the Organization maintains that the test in a subcontracting matter is not "exclusivity" as that inquiry is reserved for intra-craft disputes. The Carrier counters that snow removal and salting is not reserved to the Claimants. Rather, there is a long practice on the property that snow removal is divided between many crafts and contractors. The Organization cannot show that the work is reserved and there is no evidence to support the Organization's position.
The Board carefully reviewed the evidence. It is axiomatic that the burden is on the Organization to establish a violation of the Agreement. The Carrier asserts that there is a long practice on the property that snow removal is divided between many crafts and contractors Form 1 Award No. 39865
The evidence offered by the Organization is insufficient to establish a violation of the Agreement. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.