Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44996 Docket No. MW-43038 Old NRAB-00003-150225
New 23-3-NRAB-00003-220926
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 (Neiman Roofing Company, Inc.) to perform Maintenance of Way and Structures Department work (re-roofing) at the Depot facility at Albert Lea, Minnesota beginning on December 2, 2013 and continuing through December 19, 2013 (System File B-1401C/1599006 CNW).
The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with a proper written notice of its intent to contract out the above-referenced work, or make a good-faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning such contracting as required by Rule 1 and Appendix ‘15’.
As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants D. Murphy, C. Grafton, P. Asleson, C. Lewis, D. Willis and D. Austin shall now ‘… be compensated for and [sic] equal share of six hundred and seventy two (672) straight time hours, and one hundred and sixty eight overtime hours that the employees of the contractor worked, 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. 44996
Page 2 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
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.
It is undisputed on the record that the carrier contracted out the re-roofing of the depot facility at Albert Lea, MN. The Organization has protested this action as a violation 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 performed by employees described herein, may be let to contractors and
Form 1 Award No. 44996
Page 3 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
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: * * *
Form 1 Award No. 44996
Page 4 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
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 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.
I concur:
/s/ 0. M. Berge"
Very truly yours,
/s/ Charles I. Hopkins, Jr. Charles I. Hopkins, Jr.
The Organization contends that it has done roofing work before, and it falls squarely within the maintenance of structure portion of the unit’s duties. It maintains the shingles involved can be purchased in Menards, and the installation guide shows nothing special in the way of work or skills involved. The Carrier’s arguments about warranties are unsubstantiated, and in any event, warranty is not recognized as an exception to any contractual obligation.
The Organization acknowledged that the Claimants were fully employed during the days under review.
Form 1 Award No. 44996
Page 5 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
The Carrier argues it was not equipped for this work, and lacked trained personnel with special skills and materials to re-roof the depot. It asserts it lacked the necessary manpower to handle the work. In addition, it notes that Claimants were fully employed, having worked all assigned hours including overtime, paid vacation days, and attendance at total safety culture meetings.
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, and re-roofing work falls within the concept of maintaining a structure. The language sets forth a clear intent that such work be assigned to the BMWE. As such, we find it establishes a presumption that the described work will be assigned to the BMWE.
We find that the work in question falls squarely within the Rule 1(B) scope of work delegated to the unit in that is involves the construction and/or maintenance of a structure used in the operation of the Company. As such, the contracting gives rise to the obligation to provide the Organization with proper notice of an intent to outsource.
The Notice in question stated as follows: Location: Building #562, Albert Lea, MN
Specific Work: Providing all labor, materials, equipment and supervision for a fully adhered EPDM Single Ply Roofing System"
Form 1 Award No. 44996
Page 6 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
This Notice fails to adhere to 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.” The Notice in this case was not in compliance with the Carrier’s contractual obligations.
According to the Carrier, Claimants were fully employed during the entirety of the time that the contracting was going on. The Carrier 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 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 paid when they have already been compensated 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 remedy for upholding the terms of the parties’ Agreement.
Form 1 Award No. 44996
Page 7 Docket No. MW-43038
23-3-NRAB-00003-220926 (Old NRAB-00003-150225)
Claim partly sustained in accordance with findings. Claimants Murphy, Grafton, Asleson, Lewis, Willis and Austin shall receive an equal share of six hundred seventy-two (672) straight time hours worked by the contractor’s employes, at the applicable straight time rates of pay. The Organization’s claim for overtime is denied on the grounds that overtime must be worked in order to be paid.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
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.