PUBLIC LAW BOARD 6430

Award No. 10 Case No. 10 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

and

Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

1. The Agreement was violated when the

Carrier assigned outside forces (Gruber and

Flamingo Trucking) to perform Maintenance of

Way work (unload and transport ballast) at

Lawrence, Kansas to various locations in the

vicinity of Topeka, Kansas on April 24 and

25, 1998 (System File W-9852-155/1143544).

2. The Agreement was further violated when

the Carrier failed to furnish the General

Chairman with a proper advance written notice

of its intention to contract out said work

and failed to make a good-faith effort to

reduce the incidence of contracting out scope

covered work and increase the use of its

Maintenance of Way forces as required by Rule

52 and the December il, 1981 Letter of

Understanding.

3. As a consequence of the violations

referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above,

Eastern District Roadway Equipment Operators

A. E. Emperley, L. J. Doebele, Jr. and Kansas

Division Group 15 Truck Drivers T. W.

Brummett, L. B. Brumbaugh, R. A. Gosser, R.

D. Creek and V. E. O'Toole shall each be

compensated for an equal proportionate share

of the total number of man-hours expended by

the outside forces in the performance of the

work in question at their respective Groups

19 and 15 straight time rates and time and

one-half rates of pay.

FINDINGS:

This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds

1

PL- 3 bq3o n wet !o

and holds as follows:

1. That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute are, respectively, carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.

OPINION OF THE BOARD:

A careful review of the record indicates that the organization first filed a claim, dated June 1, 1998, on behalf of the seven employees named above. The original claim involved the following work:

Unloading and Loading ballast from railcars at Lawrence, Kansas and transporting ballast to various location around Topeka, Kansas and stockpiling ballast at Grantsville, Kansas.

(Employes' Exhibit A-1 at sheet 1 of 4 and Carrier's Exhibit B-1 at page 1 of 7.) The record further reflects that the Organization subsequently appealed the claim to the Carrier's highest designated officer as reflected in a letter dated March 31, 1999. The March 31, 1999 letter of appeal described the relevant work as follows:

crossing locations in the Topeka, Kansas area as well as various other crossing locations.

(Employes' Exhibit A-7 at sheet 1 of 2 and Carriers Exhibit B-7 at page 1 of 4.) These different descriptions of the disputed work reflect that the Organization in effect amended the claim. Under this unusual circumstance, the Board has no choice but to dismiss the claim as untimely.

AWARD:

The Claim is dismissed in accordance with the Opinion of the Board.

Robert L. Do4las7-

Chairman and Neutral Member

D. D Bartholom D. A. Ring
Emp yee Me er Carrier Memb r

Dated:

2