Organization File No. BG A090430
Carrier File No.
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7460
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION
TO )
DISPUTE ) PADUCAH & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces to
perform Maintenance of Way and Structures work (install cross ties) starting at Central City,
beginning April 20, 2009 and continuing.
2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the
General Chairman with a proper advance written notice of its intent to contract said work or
enter good-faith discussions on this matter as required by Appendix 8.
3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above,
Claimants E. Murphy, E. Crawford, C. Murphy, J. Lewis, R. Brasher, P. Brasher, D. Flener,
Jr., S. Whitehuse, D. Murphy, D. Renfrow, J. Taylor, J. Dulaney, N. Crawford, C. Padgett,
A. Hunt, M. Russell, B. Prawley, A. Atteberry and S. Renfrow shall now ". . . each be
allowed as of the date of this claim 152 hours compensation their respective straight time rate
of $20.19 for Trackmen ($3,068.88 for each Trackman listed). $21.39 for Machine Operators
($3,251.28 for each Machine Operator listed), $22.84 for Track Foreman ($3,471.68 for the
named Track Foreman and for the named Mechanic) for all normal hours worked by the
outside contractors for each claimant(s)."
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the
parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this
PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7460
AWARD No. 6
PAGE 2
Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated December 16, 2010, this Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
Beginning on April 20, 2009 the Carrier utilized a contractor to perform cross tie installation
work. This is work that falls within the scope of duties regularly performed by members of the
Maintenance of Way craft. This claim was filed on behalf of various Maintenance of Way employees contending that the Carrier violated the Agreement, specifically Appendix 8, by contracting out
this work.
The issues presented in this case are identical to those raised in Case No. 5 before this Board.
In that case, the Carrier asserted that Appendix 8 has no application because the terms of Appendix
10 had been satisfied. As in that case, it is undisputed that the Carrier had at least thirty-six full time
active Maintenance of Way employees.
For the reasons fully explained in Award No. 5, we find that the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD: Claim denied.
~~a~lySimon
irman an eutral Member
Timothy W. ke Gaylo . Jame
? ~/
Employee Member Carrier Memb6x/
Dated:
Arlington Heights', Illinois