Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43655 Docket No. MW-43588 19-3-NRAB-00003-160339

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.

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

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(CSX Transportation, Inc.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Alabama Lock and Key) to perform Maintenance of Way Bridge and Building (B&B) work (replacing mechanical door locks) at Mile Post 000385.5 in Boyles Yard in Birmingham, Alabama on the Atlanta Division on July 9, 2014 (System File B10707914/2014-173099 CSX).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to notify the General Chairman, in writing, as far in advance of the date of the above-referenced contracting transaction as was practicable and in any event not less than fifteen (15) days prior thereto or make a good-faith effort to reduce the incidence of subcontracting and increase the use of its Maintenance of Way forces as required by the Scope Rule and the December 11, 1981 National Letter of Agreement.

(3)As a consequence of the violation referred to in Parts (1) and/or

(2) above, Claimants D. Ragsdale and R. Tyler shall now '... be paid four (4) hours straight time and one (1) hours (sic) overtime, each, at their respective rates of pay.'"

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 involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The core issue in this claim is whether the disputed work was covered by the applicable Scope Rule provisions of the parties' Agreement. It is undisputed that the Carrier did not provide the General Chairman with advance notice of its plan to use an outside contractor to replace the lock(s) in question with cipher locks using push button combinations. The Carrier contends the work was not covered by the Scope language; the Organization contends it was.

It is not often that we are required to undertake the task of minutely dissecting Agreement syntax, but the unique features of the instant record compel us to do so.

The record establishes that the lock(s) were replaced for access to an area that houses sensitive and confidential information in an existing building. There is no contention that the previous locks were malfunctioning and in need of repair. We assume the new lock(s) were, indeed, new and were not in need of repair or maintenance because the record does not establish or even assert otherwise. Moreover, although the correspondence skirmishes on this point, the only unrefuted piece of evidence in the record establishes that "Contractors have always performed this work." Thus, we are compelled to find, on the record before us, that the Organization's members have never performed the precise work in question. Also unrefuted in that one piece of evidence in the record is the factual assertion that the work actually took less than four hours.

In its submission, the Organization emphasized that the Scope Rule covers repair of buildings. Another document cited as MOA #2 confirms that work in connection with maintaining, repairing and remodeling buildings and the installation of "doors" is explicitly reserved to the employees. As we parse the syntax, we must recognize that the record does not establish that the work involved maintaining, repairing, or remodeling of buildings or the installation of doors. Given the fact established by the instant record that the Organization's member have never performed the replacement work in dispute, we are compelled to conclude, on this record, that the work was not covered by the Scope language.

Given the foregoing determination, we must find that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement as alleged and, therefore, was not required to provide notice of its plans.

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 17th day of May 2019.