The Organization alleges that the Carrier engaged in an operational or organizational change because subsequent to the abolition of the three inspector positions, it permitted Burlington Northern employees and outside contractors to perform inspection and maintenance work on Carrier equipment at Lincoln and several nearby points.
This Board has carefully reviewed the voluminous record and we find that the organization has not submitted sufficient evidence proving the Carrier made an organizational or operational change within the meaning of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement. On the contrary, the Carrier presented persuasive evidence that Claimants' jobs were abolished due to a diminution in the amount of inspection work. [See SBA 605, Award No. 370.] The situation reports which the Organization incorporated into the record show that during three months in 1985 (January, July and August), Claimants and the incumbent of the third abolished position conducted 1,534 inspections and yet only 19 pieces (1.2%) of equipment needed servicing. The organization pointed to isolated instances when a Burlington Northern employee may have made an emergency repair but the record reflects that these emergency inspections occurred even before the three positions were abolished.
Next, although the Carrier argued that we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate a question requiring an interpretation of the
Washington Job Protection Agreement, this Board is empowered to decide if the Carrier and the Burlington Northern undertook a coordination of their facilities or operations within the meaning of the Washington Job Protection Agreement. However, for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the Carrier and the Burlington Northern pooled car inspection and maintenance operations. The Carrier, acting alone, eliminated a substantial preponderance of the work previous performed by Claimants. Some of the inspections are now conducted at other points on the Carrier's property and, aside from the isolated emergency repairs (which were effected both before and after Claimants' jobs were abolished), Burlington Northern employees are not inspecting Carrier equipment at Lincoln. In sum, the Board has not been presented with any evidence of a joint venture involving the Carrier and the Burlington Northern .
While this Board finds that the Carrier engaged in neither a coordination nor an operational change, the Board lacks authority to consider or decide the organization's charge that the Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the Working Agreement.
Since we are denying this claim on its merits, this Board need not address the Carrier's contentions that the organization did not timely appeal this claim to this Board and that neither Claimant was a protected employee under the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement.
John B. LaRocco
Neutral Member