AWARD NO. 4
CASE NO. 4
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5652
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD
OF
MAINTENANCE
OF
WAY E11D?LOYES
TO )
DISPUTE ) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (FORMER MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY)
STATEIIIENT OF
1. The Agreement was violated
when the Carrier assigned
outside forces (Gilliam
Railroad Services) to pick up
old crossties between Mile
Post 187 and Mile Post 180 on
the River Subdivision of the
Old Eastern Division on
Saturday, July 14 and
Sunday, July 15, 1990
(Carrier's File 900636 MPR).
2. The Carrier also violated
Article rV of the May 17, 1968
National Agreement when it
failed to furnish the General
Chairman with proper advance written notice of its Intention to contract out said
work.
3.
As a consequence of the vio-
lations referred to in Parts (1)
and/or (2) above, Machine
Operators R. E. Kautz and E.
A. Kramer shall each be allowed sixteen (16) hours' pay
at their time and one-half
rates for the work performed
on July 14 and 15, 1990.
OPINION OF BOARD
By letter dated February 13,
1990, the Carrier informed the
Organization as follows:
This is to advise of the Carrier's intent to
solicit bids to contract the unloading of
cross and switch ties and the pick up and
removal of scrap ties- and debris for the
Carriers Tie Program as follows;
_ Sub ivisionlBr nsh NE
River
128.00 203.00
s
hConference waeld on February
16, 1990 with the Organization objecting to the contracting out of the
noticed work. The work was performed by the contractor (Gilliam
Railroad Services) on July 14 and
15, 1990.
The general principles governing
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
PLB 5652, Award 4
R. E. Kautz, et al.
s Page 2
notice was served on the
Organization by letter dated
February 13, 1990. - That letter
specifically set forth the location
and type of work and included the
disputed work in this case on the
River Subdivision. According to the
claim, the work did not commence
until July 14, 1990. In light of the
February 13, 1990 notice, we find
that the 15 day notice requirements
of Article IV of the 1968 Agreement
have been met.
On the merits, the record sufficiently demonstrates that this kind
of work has been contracted out in
the past. We shall therefore deny
the claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Edwin H. Berm
Neutral Member
Pl ~7,
Carrier Member
P. ldmann
Org ation ember
. C. Robinson
Chicago, Illinois
Dated:
--~ hc~
7