x






























FINDINGS:

Upon the whole record, after hearing, this Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.


By notice dated July 24, 1992, Carrier advised the Organization of its
 intent to solicit bids to cover "the rehabilitation of the Van Asselt Yard in
 Seattle, Washington, which include (sic) installing asphalt roadways,
 grading, removal of retired facilities and chain link fence rearrangement
 and construction." In its notice Carrier asserted its availability to
 conference the notice within the next 15 days. By letter dated July 27,
 1992, the Organization objected to Carrier's intent to contract the work,
 relying upon Rules 1 and 8 as reserving the work to employees and
 r

referencing prior employee written statements furnished to Carrier in another specified file establishing the fact that employees have customarily performed this type of work and are skilled at doing so. The Organization requested the scheduling of a conference prior to the work being performed.


Carrier responded on August 14, 1992, noting that it had a practice of contracting out major construction projects such as yard rehabilitation, and indicated a willingness to meet, suggesting that the matter be set on the agenda for the next conference on contracting notices. The Organization contends it did not receive such response. Apparently, Carrier provided the Organization with a copy during the claims processing. The matter was not conferenced until March 11, 1993, wherein Carrier explained that the work

                                            PL 13 ,fJ(,) _ l o1:2-o S

                          s ,~,.~o ,N, .fy


conferenced until March 11, 1993, wherein Carrier explained that the work in issue had already been performed. The Organization contends that the contract was awarded on August 31, 1992; Carrier asserts that the project involved did not commence until February 1, 1993.


In its claim filed on March 25, 1993, the Organization argues that the work in question is specifically reserved to employees by Rules 1 and 8 of the Agreement, and has customarily and historically been performed by them, submitting employee statements supporting this contention. In its correspondence -on the property, the Organization avers that the magnitude of the project was not beyond the capabilities of its employees, takes issue with Carrier's evidence of past practice, and argues that a full monetary remedy is appropriate for loss of work opportunity regardless of whether Claimants were fully employed.


Carrier argued throughout the claims processing that the Scope rule was general in nature and did not specifically reserve this type of work to employees under the Agreement. Carrier contends that the claim involves only grading and culvert work which was just a small part of a project of such magnitude that it was beyond the capabilities of available forces to complete in a timely fashion, and asserts that the Board has held that it is not required to piecemeal such work, relying on Third Division Awards 31525, 30633, 29187, 12825. It presented evidence of a past practice of contracting large rehabilitation projects and similar type grading and culvert work and relies on prior precedent establishing its right to contract out this work under the "prior existing rights" language in Rule 52(b). See Third Division Awards 29309, 30210. Carrier also argues that the claim is excessive since the Organization failed to show that Claimants suffered any loss as a result of the contracting. Finally, Carrier asserts that it fulfilled its

n ~a N~ - 6~-os
 4 Awa ,4)a . ! y
 notice and conference obligations under Rule 52, and that any delay in
 scheduling a conference was the fault of the Organization.
 Initially we find that Carrier satisfied its Rule 52(a) obligations in
 this case. There is no contention that the grading and culvert installation
 work involved in this claim was not part of the project covered by the July
 24, 1992 notice. The record reflects that, in accord with the practice of the
 parties, the Organization filed a lengthy objection on July 27, 1992
 requesting a conference, and Carrier responded on August 14, 1992 that it
 was willing to meet and suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda
 at the next conference on contracting notices. The Organization did not do
 so. Even if it had not received Carriers response as it contends, it was
 incumbent on the Organization to pursue the matter, either seeking a
 response or again requesting a date for conference. This is especially true
 w if, as the Organization asserts, the contract was awarded on August 31,
 1991 and work began on the overall rehabilitation of the Van Asselt Yard
 at that time. Instead, over 6 months went by with no action. by the
 Organization to schedule the matter for discussion. Under such
 circumstances, we find that the delay in scheduling the conference until
 after the disputed work was completed was attributable to the
 Organization, not Carrier, who twice expressed its willingness to meet
 before the project was contracted. Thus, as the notice was served over 15
 days prior to the contracting and Carrier gave the Organization sufficient
 opportunity to schedule a conference prior to the commencement of the
 work, we find that Carrier did not violate its obligations under Rule 52(a)
 herein. See, Third Division Awards 31035, 30287.
 ,. As established on the property, the work in issue was part of the
      overall project of rehabilitation of the Van Asselt Yard of which the

Organization was notified. Carrier
 practice of contracting large project Organization that an undertaking

 capabilities of its forces to complete in on numerous occasions that the work

 1°L 3 N0.

        l~·s


l-lwO No - Iy

 s

presented evidence establishing a past of this nature, and pointed out to the of this magnitude was beyond the


a timely fashion. The Board has held contracted must be considered as a


whole and that Carrier is not required to piecemeal the work in order to give employees a small portion of it. See Third Division Awards 30633, 31526, 29187, 26850, 12825. Accordingly, we find no violation of Rule 52 in Carrier's disputed contracting in this case.


AWARD:
The claim is denied.

 Margo R. Newman
 Neutral Chairperson

AD ro

Dominic A. Ring
 Carrier Member

 Dated:

--d-Z ILL

Rick B. Wehrli
 Employe Member