?UBLtC LAW BOARD 60. 1844




                        Chicago and North Western Transportation Company


        3TATE,*-iT OF CLAIM:


          "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


              (1) The Agreement was violated when the work of constructing approximately 8300 feet of track anti installing five (5) switches near Walnut Grove, Minnesota was assigned to outside force (System 1~ile 81-24-59).


              (2) The claim presented by General Chairman S. C. Zimmerman an August 1, 1975 to Division ~Linager D.B. Carlisle is allowable as presented because said claim was not disallowed by

              Division Manager Carlisle in accordance with Rule 21..


              (3) Foreman Ivan Johnson, Machine Operator Cordon Vik and Trackmen Marvin Drake and K. R. Stress be allowed pay at their respective rates of pay for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man hours expensed by outside forces in the performance of this work because or the violations referred to within (1) and/or (2) shove."


      OPINION OF BOARD:

      Claimants in this case are the regularly assigned foreman and members of a section hang assigned to a territory encompassing Walnut Grove, Minnesota,


.. where the Continental Grain Company operates a large grain elevator. In July
      397, Carrier entered into an Agreement with Continental relative to the building

      of an industry track near the elevator. That Agreement provided inter olio for

      the construction of trackage'part of which was situated on Carrier's right-of-way

    and part on Continental property. Construction commenced in late suncncr of

        1975 utilizing outside contractors' forces. Thereafter, under date of August 1,

        1975, the Organization's General Chairman fzlcu tile following clair:i letter


        W10

        i a Carrier's Division H=;nrrger D. B. Carlisle:


              "Dear Mr. Carlisle:


                "It has been brought to my attention that a contractor, Railroad Service Inc., of Lakeville, Minnesota is constructing apycar::i ;~af:e.y fi,:3G0 ree:rw of track plus fiver ()) switc(te-; is additit7n to the main line switch at the Continental Cram Flevatar located one (1) mile east of Walnut Crave, Minnesota. 'ihe i;rac!ing for Lhis trackage was done by Gilb Construction Company, Vatnut Cove, Minnesota and they in turn sub-let the gravel haulin« to Rode11 Construction Cac;pany, V"esthroa~., Minnesota.

              "'Fire Transportation Company violated Rule 1 - Scope _ of the

              Agreement, effective date of August 1, 1974.


              Citing Rule I - Scope (b) first and third paragraphs -


y, 'Employer 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 cJisntanLling of tracks, structures

                  and other facilities used in the operation of the Company

                  in the performance of common carrier service an the

                  operating property. This paragraph does not pertain to

                  the abandonment of lines authorized by the Interstate

                  Commerce Commission.


                  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 tans<acti.on as is practicable and in arty 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 tree Company shall promptly meet with him far that purpose. The Corp;illy an,3 tlo Brotherhood representatives shall rake a g0c,d f.:i th attempt to reach an unc:ersra!uinh c:oncernintT said Contrac-Lin,(-, but if no understanding is reached tile Coc:ymv· may nev~rtltelcss pruccc:cl with :;aid contr;tctint; and tire I:rotttorIt0ud may fa.Jc acid progress c13i;att: in contlcctiun tltetowitti.'

r .... !...,5..1 ...,

 of its ?tltcW ict~ CO Cc?ntr,ICt thin nwrk

 -_ Srvoi%f' in i 1" ra(dl t hrcf' t 1) .

 ml an fIt·rt'oY
 tnorc.fWTl G'1;W,

 am . S':l (;'

 straight

 of P>~lilf)ollr.

 "Please ac3trisp w1t<:L pay per in

 thwrcOrrm, vial<it itli,

 t:lE :vt,7; :tu

 ill 1 C Aw;n!0"1Lud.

 Yrmr<; trW ·: .

 IC W ut,a?i::[>t:Lucl tft_.. C;... I ,. ' O ilw·. , did rT'. . to to ttto W,...,

 therefore on Uotoher J_5, l`t5 tim· C'-w, r.t? Clt7irp::n . ?.frc:sr:ow: Wrrier's Director

 of Labor Relations (Non

 27, the time 1 s

 "Dear Mr. Fremon:

 n-aI}erati.ni,)

 socking payment ca

 mits on claim rule as well at; oil the inerits:

 "On August 1 , 1975, 1 wrote to Division :lanai;:

 a claim for "oc:!-:1-.:. Ivan J"h Yik, Machine Opcw.t, c·n (SSA 4

 4439) and ft. t:. St t nss, 1'r:lrl;t·

 afarc·tnr'itt i.,·tl_e claimants 2>c' .

 limo rate iwr an twr,1;O prop.tt.

 hours cont;ut;v d by tire: contr-;m

 con s trmti ttu w f approximately .`;,

 Switches 1 tl adci i C ion t0 the a:.t11~

 Crain f:7 r'v':t or located ono (1) n

 Railroad Service loc. of Lakuvil perform above rtet:t.ianed work. .

 by Gill, Construct iu;t Cvulp.itlv, t:e

 turn sub-let rim f;r:mr!1 ltaulill;;

 "The '1'l;~lt::;>,,! t;tW :··.t t:or:patlv vi"l:ttca Rule l

 l w' not .:W . ! . , ,. , t ktu t ;r·tit·r:t 1 Ci:n .

 f the el:litn on the Basis of
r I).i:. C?nrlislc filing

 ~.;oo, Forc·itct;l (SSA 4G9->0-SG34), Cordon l3-'.'_.'-t33:.'`i), Marvin Drake (SSA 463-2t,-

 ,f,t (SSA 477-GO-7191) askYo that We

 ~llow=d pay at their rc.>f·c·otive s tr;tiiht

 t ic,a;tte share of the tot.rl n;ll bar of .^.;:111

 ~tal`': :artws in i>erfurl.=il;;-, the

 ;U0 feet of track plun five (5)

 , Win switches aL thc-

 i le vast of Walnut- trove=, Minnesota. IC', itll;llpsatel was CaitCFMCCi-Ci to

 he grading for tile tr.-tcr.ay;e was done

 .LulttGrove, Minnesota and they in

 try OJtful1 ta11Mt.'lT%t On C(.?iV23f1y,

 __ Scope "I I"- kutl-7011"

 ran ft f the tern t o,.. t W,_
                                                          ·~i


                but by tote 0°i .,1i v 7^rtoIL51o;1 s < i UP , i "ad tjrlE'y .:t, Es rui<'

                (Rule '?13 wlii il . x t i, ..i . " .c ii=ti(,.. . -t ,itoniE: ;t.., c1 ,L., lit`

                dISal lvd,. Ci, tlw' C,,' . .t( , ,i_, i 1 , .: i t Klw ` . (,tl) ,ia`... 2 T-or it-

                dALU sine is ti!,;, Until y W~_> .at t .'w .: , . = claim _.. Orkin,

                t._,.. r<'oAf,n f_t " . i _.. in . ' , ;},,t .. ,i ! i i v'ci t;lt,' l._..,. , .

                _`t 1E'.0bt'f 01101 .Mt'cl ._ i·, ,.. -'i', t' . ~' CI t.. h"., . P"~e'I1iod

                t_ t , D i L' i : . ion . , . . _ P . B . _ ; t 1 3 " r . t' !," i E . . _ ,. c.' t I t;: l' 1 3 ! : I t ~) I` .1 'J L l i` Ci


                1:1 'tittle .~1 1·..t . ti, a . _, 'itt~.


              "The Claim shoul0 1:..' a!l(sved as prcsentt',t i)a__°;L'd on tii·_` Ilir. rtes C`f

                1114' c1°,C' 'Ind ki<; tli- 1)::::iS Crf ,It'f::tiIL.


                i I C<t:lt ..4x`.7.1 --~ t


                                            Vury truly .. tit': ,


                                            1 :.,' ~, C~ I i t t --t:


Finally, ttntit r date of lit', t lt'ic:r I(t, l97i, C,trricr'5 highest rtpiwllate officer
 declined the claip on Llio i,rE;ri L5 tilti lt' cot?ceding a t No limit violation as
 t follow=s:
 "Dear 2:r. Zir:Tot I: nn:
 "Please refer to your letter of October l >, 3_975 appealing claim of
 Foremau Ivan V;tnimn, TfacItiirtn ft:>tnrator Corck?it G'ik, 'frc-,clc)on Marvin
 Drake and )~:. fZ, ii L t .1tta55 y (_.C`:? t r,. i it W' i .; i E1;1, account: con! I"?CCE)rS
 force;; constrtit t ing approxi: ;;t t·l J SAW) f E ct of tract: for Llte
 Continental Grain Elevator, Vo:lnut Grova, Minnesota.
 "The contention vcl;i ii:tvu made in tllo instant case that till:; i;:
 Transportation Cc,i;,ilany maintt.nanrt· of t: tf work gontrat ltd in
 violatLon of exit i: g ag,rccrynts is erroneous. This is ,? con
 tention simil it to Nat madt i n <? n'Imht r of previ our: rascs of
 track coogtructinn icy outside contractors for grain cor;i:anit's.
 "In the instant cant` ,i portion of the tt<:,i:.2gt'_ 1t1Vo1\Wl was COil
 structc'd 17y tile i0dwries' conWictor ttli ii,ilrond land and
                rigi1L-of"Way, 1f"n, t( to tilt:' in..!u:;Lr~' Ua,i::r all :?i I'~E·i';C:I~C dated

                July 2t), 1974. Ca` , of this :i°,rt'cru ?li t, 'ot ifer ·C:'3 Ch .. . ?p showing

                aiI L r"c,ia 'U t ti, d vud J.. llli i U-d ill cwr t H t' ~A uill '.·c ... ti laK.

                t t _, ,

                tt"t You dill- iIIC; t'I,:'E':Ic;e disu"snion. "ti't !I.,.Ct;itr`: :,-...,....,t ttlE'

                ma ti'r1,1 for L:!. turnout, itttyt'vt_i, ttt- ,.tit? Iint' tnt ....tt ,t~:

                l ons t rue it'd am! t ni t .1I .Lull by Tr"n.po r t ;Et i - ,. tati;.piot: 1 .-t t . .:.

frT

 ran itS VIC ri t C7cto5er 1 `"

 in its entirety.

 Cu your ctaim

 c.;`iW..(;:~1`stOi ti

 (hiring C't1G itP`Jt?1`IE't:t_ . Your i E t tt'r of At14',t1 : t Lint rewpotlcied to. It i_ claim in our next c<>:ra:

 for ow

 l.il`).

 Failin=; support, the, J), :1,'!-v chit'; i-: <lcm:ttnw,?

 f tu;lt, !"

 i 9l _> C t ; i.14 itl

 r 1 t :~ iattf th.:W-

 rf_`;ittcst Cd We d i·s Yt:nc`c> di:;cu.:.-;jc>n.

 r,.`tor Cri
 ('.`;.,t:-r:i;o r<: t i

 1_ 47 t

(;a I-1 isle,

.'n ; rli'.~Ey:


;e.; trw . W t y
j>Ii:.._,l'. 01 t
    Th fC?1"·'C~

          !Mt1;, E'~iL-:l)I I .'ltt';: CtIL' IIc=C·,.tl P,-l Y,lt''utul ,f this t~)`,u. `It

the Board hearing the parties stiyluLattuci Lhat de~:;~iLt' c;cteact-ci e`ffurCs to
 reach a settlement on tile tit;m limits aspect o£ tha~ case, they wore uaahle to
 do so. For its port tile OrE::niration ci tc~d a body of authority to
 support paynfent of tile chic; as i>rc:>entE`ci bccauss' of the Rule 21 tir.:e limits
 violation. The Organization also contended ;tr~,ut:ntlc~. that the clalri slmuld t>e
 sustainx~cl on its merits. C:irriE'r did not dm.y ttt:m CEtrliSle ttad failF`<I

 tw'f'

 i1U Ewy

 entirely to deny the clai.rt within the ~;i;;ty-d:y tia,4 limit
two-ie:d defense as follows: (J) the cltnir;t letter I rid ba·cvwe rri~:pl.icfm3 Lt,t:-i:y tile rnov,uwni. of office £ilOF at:cll (2) evt'n though not timely denied, t!a· aLai;,!

 but assert,,-.? -?

 itself ><r:ls fatally defective bc'raustr "too vague lil

 Carrier ,it-gued that tile cl<iiw v,as Without support eittwr in fact- or in tit`

 Agrr_· E`:,:iw t .
                                                  t~


    ~`~ E:. l ci `w ? - "J ;. ~'.:J :u t.~ C F ,. L c.'. t..; ` " 1 , . I ° · f > > y u -`` > W y'. '`i . _ _ , . . . .~ `~ 4 ; ~:~ i . C. C h C: ~. t~'...

by both parties and conclude that Rule 21 mandate. 3 sustaining award with
 no need to consider the merits of the claim. Rule 21 is clear and unambi;uous
 on its face and except for t;laL class of claims gov-rned by NDC Decision No. 16
 and our recent Award No. 5, Case No. 17 it has been construed strictly. Id e
 can find no basis in the record before us to depart from the firmly established
 line of precedent enforcing the time limit on claims rule by requiring payment
 as presented of those claims not properly denied within _:ixty days from; dE:te Ui
 filing. See Awards 12233, 15788, 16000, 16001, 16559, 1.7085, and 20900 et al.
 Carrier's assertions of vaueness and ambiguity in the instaj:t claim aye raised
 d,~! ciovo at the Board level and would fail for that reason even if r.re could lcJok
 beyond the timeliness question to entertain the merits of this.dispute. We
 resist the invitation to speculate that enforcement of the award required by
 Rule 21 might prove difficult. To the extent that-Award No. 15631 excuses an
 outright failure to deny a claim on such grounds it flies in the face of the
 better reasoned cases. Should a problem of computation of damages arise the`
 services of this Board are available in an interpretation proceeding and of
 course other forums are available for enforcement proceedings. Given the clear
 language of Rule 21, the remedy mandated by the Agreement is an order that the
 claim be paid as presented on August 1, 1975.

 FINDINGS:
 Public Law Board No. 1844, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:
 1. That the Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;

    2. that the Board teas jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;


and

    3. that the Agreement was violated.

,V.-,'A R D,

 PllrSu,ICtt LL) tilt! re(,tlitt2FIellt'; Of 1,

 prt=St'ntc'd, OUL w~iL:> .`>Ilail 12vC 1>,2 C't'ilstcletOd
 as <i or k,.,aiver of t110
 of tkle C«;:,aa:lr ":s to other r3 imi 1:1 .~ cl:ticks car
 grievances.

 Cazxisx is directed try ccntply with this Arrr;ird within 30 days of issuance.

 Berge-, LaFployee :Sc:.~izer

 Dated: ~ t ~ .°t,, `y Cc)
Dana E. List llLn, C10-izy lsm

 i _.!y i',r M~t.l 4-1,~ /r
              ?

Selnnie~;.e, Camel: .,elaht-r