The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with an advance notice of its intent to contract out the aforesaid work or make a good-faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning such contracting as required by Rule 1(b) and Appendix 15.
Form 1 Award No. 39941The 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.
On the dates in dispute, the Claimant held a Machine Operator's position and was on furlough status.
On March 6 and 7, 2007, the Carrier engaged an outside contractor, (McDowell and Sons) to clear snow from crasser between Buckeye and Chapin, Mile Post 134 to Mile Post 167, on the Mason City Subdivision. The contractor's employee worked eight hours on each of the days performing the snow removal work. The Claimant was not caged to perform the duties.
In its Submission, the Carrier asserts that an "emergency" existed, therefore allowing it broader latitude with respect to the requirements of the Agreement. According to the Carriers letter of June 14, 2007:
First, the conditions on the dates in dispute did not constitute an "emergency." As the Carrier points out, an "emergency" is ". . . an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action." Third Division Award 20527 quoting Third Division Award 10965. As the Organization points out Form 1 Award No. 39941
in its letter of July 19, 2007, "[a] build of snow at crossings happens every time there is a snow fall." We fail to see how the conditions described by the Carrier meet the definition of an "emergency."
Second, even if an "emergency," the Carrier was obligated to at least attempt to call the Claimant (who was on dough) to see if he was available to perform the work. That was not done.
Third, the Carrier's assertions that the Claimant was not qualified to perform the work are not supported by the record. According to the Claimant, "I can run a back hoe and am fear with all the rule[s] for running machines on the Union Pacific Railroad." The Claimant was a Machine Operator and nothing shows that the Claimant could not operate the equipment necessary to perform the snow removal work.
Fourth, Rule 14(D) provides that "[f]urloughed employees shall be called in seniority order for extra and relief work." The snow removal work in dispute appears to be extra work for which the Claimant should have been called.
The Organization met its burden. The Claimant shall be made whole for the lost work opportunity (16 hours straight time as claimed).
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 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.