PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2960
AWARD NO.
ISO
CASE NO. 216
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
"1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it
contracted with an outside concern to reroof the
roundhouse and the B&B Carshop Building at Chadron,
Nebraska (Organization File 6LF-2150 T: Carrier
File 81-87-8).
"2. The Agreement was further violated when the
Carrier did not give the General Chairman prior
written notification of its intent to assign said
work to outside forces.
"3. Because of (1) and/or (2) above the Claimants D.
J. Brech, D. V. Wood, S. D. Connors, R. G. Hanson,
G. R. Crile, D. E. Grant, D. L. Sutton and T. R.
Schave shall each be compensated, at their
respective rates of pay, an equal and
proportionate share of the 784 man hours expended
by the contractor."
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence,
finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this
dispute are respectively Employe and carrier within the meaning
of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has
jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On June 30, 1986, a hail storm occurred at Chadron, Nebraska
causing damage to the flat roofs on the roundhouse and the Car -
PLB 2960 -2- AWARD NO. $O
Department buildings at that location. The Carrier
then contracted -- without notice to the General Chairman -- with a
roofing company to install a new roof. The contractor did not
begin the project until 35 days after the storm. In the meantime,
the B&B employees performed temporary repairs. Subsequently, the
instant claim was filed.
At the outset, it must be stated that the Carrier's failure
to provide notice cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
justified on an emergency basis. The delay in the project speaks
for itself. Nor can the lack of notice be justified based on the
basis of a local understanding. The agreement clearly requires
notice to the General Chairman.
While the notice requirement in the agreement was violated,
the Board is not entitled to affix a penalty or punitive damages.
Whether there is a monetary penalty depends ultimately whether
the subcontracting fits the agreement criteria and if it did not,
whether the Claimants lost any work opportunities.
It is the conclusion of the Board that the particular
project in question falls under the special skills criteria.
Initially, the vice chairman contended that no special skills
were required. More specifically, it was asserted that the job
was a rather ordinary roofing job of removing old roofing and
installing new felt, rolled roffing and sealing seams and joints
with hot tar. If this were the case, we would agree it probably
was roofing work ordinarily performed by and within the skills
of, the B&B employees. However, without any meaningful rebuttal,
PLB 2960 -3- AWARD NO.'5
o
the Carrier asserts that the job in question involved a special
roof membrane for which the B&B doesn't have the skill and
equipment to apply. This is supported too by an assertion that
similar projects were accomplished in the past without objections
by the organization.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Gil Vernon, Chairman
D) fl~. Bartholomay
<:::)4 QT~
Employe Member Car 'er Member
Dated:
4- -'so - Q