Form 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 40863
Docket No. MW-41345
11-3-NRAB-00003-100125

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - ( IBT Rail Conference

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:



concerning said contracting as required by

December 11, 1981 Letter of Understanding.


52 and the
Form 1 Page 2

FINDINGS:

evidence,

Award No. 40863
Docket No. MW-41345
11-3-NRAB-00003-100125



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 involved herein.

Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute



By letter dated April 21, 200$, the Carrier advised the Organization's General Chairman as follows:

"THIS IS TO ADVISE OF THE CARRIER'S INTENT TO CONTRACT TIDE FOLLOWING WORK:

PLACE: At various locations on the North Platte Service Unit.



A conference on the notice was held on May 13, 2008, without reaching an understanding.

On November 6, 2008, a contractor's employee utilized a truck crane to lift a frog from a track and set in a new frog on the South Morrill Subdivision. On November 18, 2008, the same contractor's employee performed similar duties at a different location on the South Morrill Subdivision. This claim followed.
Form I Page 3

Award No. 40863
Docket No. MW-41345
11-3-NRAB-00003-100125

The notice in this matter was the same notice found sufficient for purposes of Rule 52 in Third Division Award 40861.


For reasons set forth in Third Division Award 40857, and Awards cited therein and contrary to the Carrier's argument, ". . . in contracting disputes, the Organization does not have to demonstrate performance of work by scope-covered employees on an exclusive basis."


respect to the Carrier's "mixed practice" assertions and its argument

that in those cases it can contract out scope-covered work, see Award 40861, supra:



In this case (and contrary to the facts in Award 40861, supra) the contractor did not utilize the Carrier's equipment with its employee which caused the Board to sustain that claim as being inconsistent with the notice. In this case, the contractor provided the equipment and the operator. The statement of Manager of Track Maintenance B. Mumm, which was attached to the Carrier's May 8, 2009, letter stated:


"Used RC Crane to set frog in because did not have my own equipment to safely set in frog. The frog weighs 12,000 pounds. Did not have a piece of equipment that could make that lift an its own."

Based on the above, the claim lacks merit and shall be denied.

AWARD

Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 40863
Page 4 Docket No. MW-41345
11-3-NRAB-00003-100125



This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.




Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of February 2011.