(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE: (and ( (Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:









FINDINGS:

The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement; this
Page 2 PLB 7101
Case No. 3

Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and that the parties were given due notice of the Hearing held.

Claimant L. L. Hughes has established and holds seniority as a Foreman. Claimant R. D. Sanders has established and holds seniority as an Assistant Foreman. Claimant R. E. Pond has established and holds seniority as a Truck Driver Common. Claimant J. G. Kepler has established and holds seniority as a Trackman. On the relevant dates, Claimants were regularly assigned to their respective positions on Seniority District T-2.

On March 22, 2003 through March 27, 2003, Mark Blong allegedly performed routine Maintenance of Way track work on the side track at Mile Post 181.2 on the Mason City Subdivision, near Hurley, Iowa. The Carrier contends that this section of track was leased to Interstate Power and Light. Employees of Mark Blong, consisting of 1 foreman, 2 skid loader operators, 2 truck drivers and 1 laborer, used machinery to unload ballast, surface, align and dress off the track at Mile Post 181.2. According to the Organization, each of Mark Blong's 6 employees worked a total of 48 hours performing the relevant work.

The Organization contends that the Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Mark Blong the work of aligning ballast, surfacing, aligning and other related track work. The Organization claims that it was improper for the Carrier to contract out the above-mentioned work, which is work that is properly reserved to the Organization.

According to the Organization, the Carrier had customarily assigned work of this nature to the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Employees. The Organization further claims that the work in question is consistent with the Scope Rule. According to the Organization, the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Employees were fully qualified and capable of performing the designated work. The work performed by Mark Blong is within the jurisdiction of the Organization and therefore Claimants should have performed said work. The Organization argues that because Claimants were denied the opportunity to perform the relevant work, Claimants should be compensated for the lost work opportunities.

Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that the Organization cannot meet its burden of proof in this matter. The Carrier contends that because the track in question had been leased to Interstate Power and Light, the relevant work was within the sole control of Interstate. Interstate had the right to contract out said work to Mark Blong. Specifically, the language of the lease agreement specifies:


` Page 3 PLB 7101












Page .1 PGB 7101
Case No. 3





" Steven M. Merit!

C irperson and Neutral Member


                                        'I


    Dominic Ring Ry R inson

    Carrier Member Organization Member


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 2, day of / ~iZ7 2009.