Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44995 Docket No. MW-43013 Old NRAB-00003-150201
New 23-3-NRAB-00003-220928
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Patricia T. Bittel when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division – (IBT Rail Conference
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(Union Pacific Railroad Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Winkler Tree Service) to perform Maintenance of Way and Structures Department work (clear snow on roadways) around the Proviso Yard near Northlake, Illinois on the Geneva Subdivision on December 9, 2013 (System File J-1401C-503/1598214 CNW).
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 contracting transaction as is practicable and, in any event, not less than fifteen (15) days prior thereto regarding the aforesaid work and when it failed to make a good-faith effort to reduce the incidence of contracting out scope covered work and increase the use of its Maintenance of Way forces as required by Rule 1 and the December 11, 1981 National Letter of Agreement (Appendix 15).
As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants G. Cline and J. Rogers shall now each be compensated ‘***for the six (6) hours of overtime that the contractors’ forces spent performing this work at the applicable rates of pay. ***’”
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 2 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
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.
On Monday December 9, 2013 the Carrier had a contractor, Winkler Tree Service, clear snow on the roadways around the Proviso Yard on the Geneva Subdivision. The contractor used two trucks to do this work. The Organization filed a claim contesting the outsourcing as a breach of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. That Agreement addressed the subject of contracting out, stating as follows in pertinent part:
RULE l – SCOPE
The rules contained herein shall govern the hours of service, working conditions and rates of pay of all employees in any and all subdepartments of the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department, (formerly covered by separate agreements with the C&NW, CStPM&O, CGW, Ft.DDM&S, DM&CI, and Ml) represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes.
Employees included within the scope of this Agreement in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department shall perform all work in connection with the construction, maintenance, repair and dismantling of tracks, structures and other facilities used in the operation of the Company in the performance of common Carrier service on the operating property. This paragraph does not pertain to the abandonment of lines authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
By agreement between the Company and the General Chairman, work as described in the preceding paragraph, which is customarily
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 3 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
performed by employees described herein, may be let to contractors and be performed by contractors. However, such work may only be contracted provided that special skills not possessed by the Company's employees, special equipment not owned by the Company, or special material available only when applied or installed through supplier, are required; or unless work is such that the Company is not adequately equipped to handle the work; or time requirements must be met which are beyond the capabilities of Company forces to meet.
In the event the Company plans to contract out work because of one of the criteria described herein, it shall notify the General Chairman of the Brotherhood in writing as far in advance of the date of the contracting transaction as is practicable and in any event not less than fifteen (15) days prior thereto, except in 'emergency time requirements' cases. If the General Chairman, or his representative, requests a meeting to discuss matters relating to the said contracting transaction, the designated representative of the Company shall promptly meet with him for that purpose. The Company and the Brotherhood representatives shall make a good faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning said contracting, but if no understanding is reached, the Company may nevertheless proceed with said contracting and the Brotherhood may file and progress claims in connection therewith. (See Appendix '15') Nothing contained herein shall be construed as restricting the right of the Company to have work customarily performed by employees included within the scope of this Agreement performed by contract in emergencies that affect the movement of traffic when additional force or equipment is required to clear up such emergency condition in the shortest time possible. * * *
Appendix 15 (the December 11, 1981 Letter of Agreement) states as follows in pertinent part:
"December 11, 1981 * * * Dear Mr. Berge: * * *
The carriers assure you that they will assert good-faith efforts to reduce the incidence of subcontracting and increase the use of their maintenance of way forces to the extent practicable, including the
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 4 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
procurement of rental equipment and operation thereof by carrier employees.
The parties jointly reaffirm the intent of Article IV of the May 17, 1968 Agreement that advance notice requirements be strictly adhered to and encourage the parties locally to take advantage of the good faith discussions provided for to reconcile any differences. In the interests of improving communications between the parties on subcontracting, the advance notices shall identify the work to be contracted and the reasons therefor. * * *
Please indicate your concurrence by affixing your signature in the space provided below.
Very truly yours,
I concur:
/s/ 0. M. Berge
The Carrier’s Notice stated as follows:
/s/ Charles I. Hopkins, Jr. Charles I. Hopkins, Jr.
PLACE: At various locations on the Chicago Service Unit.
SPECIFIC WORK: Providing fully operated, fueled and maintained track hoes / excavators with buckets and thumb, backhoe(s), grapple truck(s), dump truck(s), loaders necessary to assist with routine and emergency right of way cleanup. Loading, unloading, and hauling ties, scrap, fill material, ballast and asphalt and snow removal commencing January 01, 2013 thru December 31, 2013.
As the Organization sees it, snow removal work is clearly, unambiguously and unquestionably maintenance of '' ... facilities used in the operation of the Company in the performance of common carrier service on the operating property. ***," as specified by Rule 1(B). Given the express reservation of work, there can be no question that work of this type has customarily and historically been assigned to and
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 5 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
performed by the Maintenance of Way forces. Further, the Organization maintains the machinery used by the contractor in this instance is nearly identical to that currently owned and operated by the Carrier's own Maintenance of Way forces.
The Organization also alleges that the Carrier's December 28, 2012 letter did not provide proper, advance notification of the contracting transaction at issue here. It contends none of the exceptions exists here.
The Carrier asserts it was not adequately equipped to perform the necessary work. It substantiates this contention with a statement from Director Nichols. In addition, it argues Claimants were not ready and available to perform the work being grieved, as they were working their regular assignments. It concludes no remedy can be granted as a result.
It perceives the Organization as having no evidence of any violation. In its view, no violation of the Agreement occurs when a contractor performs work after the Carrier provides proper notice and when the Carrier does not possess the necessary equipment to perform the work.
The Organization maintains that Rule 1(B) establishes a strong presumption that work reserved to Maintenance of Way forces will be performed by them. In its view, only when the Carrier can establish an exception will the Carrier be permitted to contract out reserved work. By contrast, the Carrier cites Third Division Award 37480 for the proposition that the Scope Rule is general in nature, and the BMWE must establish that it has traditionally performed the work as a matter of customary and historical performance before it can establish a contract violation.
On this point we find the Organization’s position to be more persuasive. Section B of Rule 1 unequivocally assigns to the BMWE “all work in connection with the construction, maintenance, repair and dismantling of tracks, structures and other facilities….” This is mandatory language. It sets forth a clear intent that such work be assigned to the BMWE. Snow removal is a classic example of maintenance of way work. We find Rule 1(B) establishes a presumption that such maintenance of way work will be assigned to the BMWE.
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 6 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
The second paragraph of Section B states that the work described in the first paragraph “is customarily performed by employees described herein.” This constitutes an agreement between the parties that the work described in the first paragraph of Section B is jointly considered to have customarily been performed by the BMWE. The language starts with the words “By agreement between the Company and the General Chairman,” meaning that what follows has been the subject of joint assent. As such, it cannot serve as imposition of a burden upon the Organization to establish that the work in question has customarily been performed by affected employees. To the contrary, it expresses a stipulation between the parties that it has.
Because snow removal constitutes maintenance of way and therefore falls within the purview of the unit, the Carrier was obliged to provide the Organization with a contractually mandated notice.
The Notice in this instance fails the express requisites of Appendix 15, incorporated by reference into the parties’ Agreement. As more fully explained in Award NRAB-3-220922, this Board does not have the authority to negate a provision the parties have negotiated into their contractual obligations. Appendix 15 requires that notices of outsourcing “identify the work to be contracted and the reasons therefor.” Though the Notice here describes the work anticipated for outsourcing, it gives no reasons for needing to subcontract the snow removal. It follows that the Notice at issue was not in compliance with the Carrier’s contractual obligations.
The Carrier provided work records showing that both Claimants worked a full eight-hour day on December 9, 2013. It contends that this fact precludes a remedy, and cites precedent: “monetary compensation is not awarded in the absence of a proven loss of earnings or work opportunity by Claimants notwithstanding the improper contracting of work.” Third Division Award 37103.
The Organization counters, arguing that the Board has historically paid fully employed claimants under the applicable Agreement. Specifically, it cites Award 40819:
If full-employment was allowed to serve as a defense to a monetary remedy, the defense would effectively allow the Carrier to violate the Agreement with impunity. Thus, the asserted defense is not persuasive here.
The problem here is that both parties are right, but it cannot be both ways. If the Carrier’s argument is accepted, the Organization would by definition be denied a
Form 1 Award No. 44995
Page 7 Docket No. MW-43013
23-3-NRAB-00003-220928 (Old NRAB-00003-150201)
remedy in every single case where Claimants were employed, and the Carrier would be free to repeatedly violate Rule 1(B) without consequence. By contrast, if the Organization’s argument is given deference, Claimants would be compensated when they have not been deprived of payment for their work.
We are persuaded that the obligation of the Board to interpret and enforce the parties’ Agreement is our preeminent function, and to allow contract violations to continue without consequence is an affront to that function. It is well accepted in remediating contract breach that the law seeks to fashion a remedy where breach has occurred. Applicable precedent provides us with only two options: look the other way or grant the claim. We find granting the claim to be the better choice for upholding the terms of the parties’ Agreement.
Claim sustained in accordance with findings. Claimants G. Cline and J. Rogers shall each be compensated for the six (6) hours of overtime that the contractors’ forces worked on December 9, 2013 at the applicable, straight time rates of pay.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
ORDER
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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June 2023.