(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier did not give the General. Chairman prior written notification of its plan to assign said work to outside forces.
(3) Because of the aforesaid violations, Mr. R. Tammaro shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at the foreman's straight time rate and Mr. R. C. Meyers shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at the Class 2 machine operator's rate for each day, beginning September 9, 1985, on which the work referred to in Part (1) hereof is performed by outside forces.
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, and after hearing on December 5, 1988, in the Carrier's Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the 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 by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
The dispute arises from claims by two furloughed Employees in the classification of Class 2 Machine Operator and Foreman in the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Department, who allege that the Carrier violated the applicable Agreement when it engaged an outside contractor (Manz Railroad Construction) to replace (blacktop) grade crossings at Waverly, New York, and other locations throughout the South Tier Division beginning on September 9, 1985. The Claimants further allege that the Agreement was also violated by reason of the Carrier's failure to give the General Chairman prior written notification of its plan to assign the subject work to outside forces.
The requested remedy is for an award which directs the carrier to pay claimant Tammaro eight (8) hours at the Foreman's straight time rate and Claimant Meyers eight hours at the straight time rate of the Class 2 Machine Operator for each day beginning September 9, 1985 on which the subject work was performed by outside forces.
After due study of the foregoing and of the whole record, inclusive of the submissionsi presented by the parties in support of their respective positions in the case, the Board concludes and
i The prior authorities submitted by the parties have been carefully studied and analyzed in making the ultimate conclusions and findings in this case.
finds that the facts and issues presented in this case parallel those presented by the disputes disposed of by this Board in Award No. 9, Case No. 97 Award No. 10, Case No. 10; and Award No. 11, Case No. 11. In all Awards claims for payment of compensation to furloughees were sustained.
In disposing of the herein claims the Board will adhere to the precedents of Awards Nos. 9, 10, and 11 and consequently, the herein claims will be sustained.
FRED BLACKWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19129 ROMAN WAY
GAITHERSBURG,
MARYLAND 20879
pp snsooo
Foregoing proposed Award No. 12, Case 12, along with proposed Awards Nos. 10 and 11, was the subject of extensive discussion in the Executive Session conducted by the Board in Carrier's offices, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on August 22, 1990. All of these proposed Awards No. 10, 11, and 12, related to similar claims arising from the Carrier actions of contracting out paving work at grade crossings.
After careful consideration of all matters covered by said discussion in the Executive Session, it is concluded that as with Award No. 10, Case 10, and Award No. 11, Case 11, such discussion does not provide a basis for changing any of the findings in the proposed Award.
An Addendum similar to the herein Addendum will be found in Awards No . 10 and 11.
FRED BLACKWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19129 ROMAN WAY
GAITHERSBURG,
MARYLAND 20879
(001) 977-5000