AWARD NO. 3
CASE NO. 3
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5652
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO
)
DISPUTE ) UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (FORMER MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY)
STATEMENT OF Cl
1. The Agreement was violated
when the Carrier assigned
outside forces (Power Track) to
perform Maintenance of Way
work to "... load materials
such as rail, crossties and
crossing planks from the
middle of the Harlingen Yard
to a recently constructed
fenced area by Fair Park
Boulevard. *** used a backhoe
and trailer to load and transport rubber pads and crossing
materials from Harlingen to
Alamo, Texas (MP 27.1 on
Mission Branch)." (Carrier's
File 900631 MPR).
2. The Carrier also violated
Article IV of the May 17, 1968
National Agreement when it
failed to furnish the General
Chairman with a proper advance written notice of its intention to contract out said
work.
3. As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1)
and/or (2) above, Kingsville
Division employes R T. Lucio,
A. Hinojosa and S. Acevado
shall each be allowed twenty
(20) hours' pay at their re-
spective overtime rates of pay
[ten (10) hours each day] for
the time consumed by the
outside forces in the performance of the aforesaid work
on June 23 and 24, 1990.
OPINION OF BOARD
As disclosed by the record developed between the parties, by letter
dated May 14, 1990, the Carrier
served the following notice on the
Organization:
This is to advise-of-the intention of
the Company
to
solicit bids to contract the following work:
Place: Houston. Freeport,
Angleton and Bay City,
Bloomington, Corpus Christi.
Odem, Pleasanton, Kingsville,
Harlingen and Brownsville.
Specific Work: Tie renewal,
crossing renewal and drainage
work. Equipment to be contracted: Backhoe, dumptruck,
dozer.
Conference was held on May 18,
1990, with the Organization objecting to the work being contracted
out.
PLB 5652, Award 3
R. T. Lucio, et al.
Page 2
The general principles governing
AWARD
contracting out cases for the Carrier
are found in Award 1 of this Board.
Notwithstanding the
Organization's assertion that it was
not afforded notice of the Carrier's
intent to contract out the work in
dispute, the record shows that such
notice was served on the
Organization by letter dated May 14,
1990. That letter specifically set
forth the location and type of work
and included the disputed work in
this case at Harlingen. According to
the claim, the work did not com
mence until June 23, 1990. In light
of the May 14, 1990 notice, we find
that the 15 day notice requirements
of Article rV of the 1968 Agreement
have been met.
On the merits, the record suf
ciently demonstrates that this kind
of work has been contracted out in
the past. We shall therefore deny
the claim.
Claim denied.
Edwin H. Berm
Neutral Member
Carrier tuber
P. Wal
Org anon Member
R . Robinson
Chicago, Illinois
Dated:,