PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2960
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Q and
DIS Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned an outside contractor
to dismantle track commonly referred to as the Yard 1 Run Around, 2 Medusa
Leads and Tracks 1 and 10 East in the Piggy Back Yard in Proviso, Illinois
commencing on June 15, 1989 (Organization's File 9KB-4504T; Carrier's File
81-89-137).
2. The Carrier also violated Rule 1 when it failed to notify the General Chairman
of its intent to contract said work.
3. As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above,
the senior foreman and two senior common machine operators in Seniority
District T-9 shall each be compensated at their respective rates of pay for an
equal proportionate share of the man-hours expended by the contractor forces
commencing June 15, 1989 and continuing until such time the violation ceases
to exist."
FINDINGS: This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, fords that the
Employees and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employees and Carrier
within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein.
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
The Parties in the submissions suggested that this case was identical to Case 296,
Award 172. Indeed, both involved the dismantling of track by an outside concern to whom
the Carrier alleged that it had sold the track on an "as is-where is" basis. There are,
however, some critical distinctions. First of all, in Award 172 there was an assertion by the
Organization that the Carrier retained ownership of some of the material removed by the
contractor. No such issue exits here. Second of all, and most importantly, in Case 296,
?<.8 'Q9~,~-fwd 19 1
Case No. 343
Page 2
Award 172, the Carrier failed to provide satisfactory evidence that ownership had been
transferred to the contractor at the time of dismantling. In this case, the Carrier has
provided evidence that convinces us that ownership of the track had transferred to the outside
concern at the time of dismantling. Accordingly, we conclude in line with well-established
precedent, no violation of the agreement occurred in such circumstances.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Gil Vernon, Chairman
. Hearvieux 1).
)D.
VBartholomay
ux
MM
ember@aqiw Member
·~C
Dated:
_JG
~~