Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45172 Docket No. MW-43853
24-3-NRAB-00003-230208
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kathryn A. VanDagens when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division – (IBT Rail Conference
(BNSF Railway Corporation STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Fenton Construction) to perform Maintenance of Way and Structures Department work (remove and replace crossing planks and panels and associated duties) at the Hamilton Blvd crossing in Sioux City, Iowa on September 24 and 25, 2014 (System File T-D- 4562-M/11-15-0174 BNR).
The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to provide the General Chairman with advance notification of its intent to contract out the aforesaid work or to make a good-faith effort to reduce the incidence of subcontracting and increase the use of its Maintenance of Way forces as required by Rule 55 and Appendix Y.
As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants B. Risetter, T. Plummer, K. Crist, M. Meehan, T. Fetterman, W. Silkenson, K. Wacker, J. Bumpous and N. Hahler shall now each be compensated for twenty-eight (28) hours at their appropriate overtime rate of pay.”
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 Claimants have established and hold seniority within various classifications of the Carrier’s Maintenance of Way and Structures Department.
On March 10, 2014, the Carrier provided the following notice to the Organization:
Siding Improvements – Various Locations – Sioux City Sub-Division
***
As information, BNSF plans to expand capacity with construction of new mainline, yard track extensions, and associated turnouts to improve velocity between and around the Marshall and Sioux City Sub-Divisions. The work will [be] performed near MP 102 to MP 105 on the Sioux City Sub-Division, MP 220 to MP 226 on the Marshall Sub-Division, and include the 18th St. Yard and Sioux City Terminal. BNSF is not adequately equipped with the necessary specialized equipment… necessary to perform this volume of dirt work. Moreover, BNSF forces do not possess the necessary specialized dirt work skills for projects of this size and type….
On September 24 and 25, 2014, the Carrier assigned outside forces (Fenton Construction) to perform removal of crossing/track panels, cleaning out mud/ballast, replacing crossing/track panels and hauling away used material. The contractor was assigned various tasks at the Hamilton Boulevard road crossing in Sioux City, Iowa on the Twin Cities Division. On the claimed dates, the outside contractor utilized one foreman, four truck drivers and four machine operators.
In a letter dated November 19, 2014, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants. The Carrier denied the claim in a letter dated January 13, 2015. Following discussion of this dispute in conference, the positions of the parties remained unchanged, and this dispute is now properly before the Board for
adjudication.
The Organization contends that the work of removing and replacing road crossings and hauling away used material is typical Maintenance of Way (“MOW”) work. This work has customarily and historically been assigned to and performed by the Carrier’s MOW forces and is contractually reserved to them under Rules 1, 2, 5, 6, 29, 55 and the Note to Rule 55 to the parties’ Agreement.
The Organization contends that the Carrier did not factually dispute that the claimed work is basic MOW work that has customarily been performed by MOW forces. The Organization contends that the Carrier’s assertion that the work has been subject to a “mixed practice” performed by both MOW forces and contractors is not supported in the record.
The Organization contends that it has presented a prima facie case of the Carrier’s violation, so the burden shifts to the company to prove that the claim is not valid. The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Note to Rule 55 and the National Letter of Agreement when it failed to notify the Organization in writing in advance of its plans to assign outside forces to perform the claimed work. Furthermore, the parties set forth specific criteria under which reserved work may be contracted out and that these are the only criteria under which the Carrier may assert justification for its desire to contract out work customarily performed by MOW employes.
The Organization contends that there is no question that the Carrier failed to comply with the advance notification and conference provisions of the Agreement. The Organization contends that the Carrier’s alleged March 10, 2014, letter did not apply to the claimed work. Therefore, the Organization contends that the Claimants are entitled to the remedy sought.
The Organization contends that the Carrier’s assertion that it was inadequately equipped or staffed to address this large capacity project should be rejected, because the Carrier has failed to maintain an adequate work force, leading to the claim that it must assign the work to others. The Organization contends that it is not requesting the Carrier to piecemeal this project, which is really several small projects grouped together in one contracting notice. The Organization contends that the work claimed here is not part of a large capacity expansion project.
The Carrier contends that the Agreement’s general Scope Rule does not
reserve the work to the BMWED, so the Organization must show that its members exclusively performed this work on a system-wide basis, which it failed to do. The Carrier contends that if the MOW forces have performed similar work in the past, this would suggest no more than a “mixed practice” on the property, which defeats the Organization’s claim to exclusive rights to perform the work.
The Carrier contends that it notified the Organization that it was contracting to expand capacity with construction of new mainline, yard track extensions, and associated turnouts. The Carrier contends that in advance of this complex project, it sent a contracting notice to the Organization on March 10, 2014.
The Carrier does not deny that the work took place as alleged but contends that it was performed as a portion of the capacity expansion projects that have been ongoing for many years. The Carrier contends that on-property precedent has established that its forces do not perform new construction projects of this magnitude and type and that the Carrier is not obligated to piecemeal out small portions of more complex projects simply because its own employes might occasionally perform some of the work. The Carrier contends that the claimed work was one small part of a much larger project.
The Carrier contends that even if the Organization’s claim possessed merit, the claim for damages is excessive. The Claimants are not entitled to any damages, as they were fully employed and suffered no monetary loss.
The claimed work, removing and replacing crossing planks and panels and associated duties, is work customarily and historically performed by the MOW forces. See, e.g., Award 33 of Public Law Board 6204, “[M]embers of the craft work on the maintenance of track, on structures associated with the operation of the railroad.” Thus, the work is reserved to the BMWED by the parties’ Agreement.
The March 10, 2014 contracting notice sent to the Organization identified the work claimed here. The work at the Hamilton Blvd crossing in Sioux City, Iowa on September 24 and 25, 2014, was encompassed by the Notice. The removal and replacement of a grade crossing and track panel located on the Hamilton Boulevard grade crossing at the Hamilton Blvd was one of several track improvements that the Carrier was undertaking at this time on the Sioux City Sub-division.
The Carrier asserted that its Notice satisfied its obligation under the Note to Rule 55 to give a reason for the contracting out. Here, the Carrier asserted that it
was not adequately equipped to handle all aspects of this project and that its forces did not possess the specialized skills required for all aspects of these installations, two of the exceptions listed under the Note. While the Carrier characterized this work as a smaller part of a large capacity expansion project, the Organization objects that this is really several smaller projects grouped together into one contracting notice.
This Board has previously defined large construction projects as those that “occur on such a scale that it is not realistic to think that they could be accomplished by Carrier forces working on overtime and weekends.” Third Division Award 41223. In that on-property Award, this Board denied a claim after recognizing that the Carrier was involved in “a huge undertaking that could easily require the assistance of outside forces to complete in a timely manner – and completing such a large project quickly, with a minimum disruption to the existing service, is an important and legitimate goal for the Carrier.”
Here, we find that the Carrier’s conclusion that it is “not adequately equipped” to complete this large-scale project without assistance from outside forces was not unreasonable. Like many other large scale projects undertaken by this Carrier, the claimed work here is but one small part of a larger construction project. The Board concludes that the Carrier was not adequately equipped to handle the work, and it did not violate the Agreement when it contracted out the work in this claim.
Claim denied.
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 22nd day of February 2024.