Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this board is duly constituted by agreement under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the record and the parties" presentations. the Board finds that the claim should be disposed of as follows:
The Claimants in this case allege that the contracting out of a rebuild project is in violation of the agreement between the Organization and the Carrier that prohibits contracting out work in the scope and capability of the workforce. The claim was initiated on October 5, 2005 by the Organization and went through the customary review process that resulted in a February 27, 2006 decline of the claim by Labor Relations. The Carrier has asserted that the rule in question does not reserve any type of specific work, and the type of work contracted out in this case is consistent with the use of contractors that have performed bridge rebuilding projects. Additionally, the Carrier notes no employee was furloughed due to the use of contractors in this case. S.B. 1049
There is insufficient evidence that the contracted work was of a character or nature that could have been completed by the existing workforce as is required Rule 1. The burden of proof is on the Organization to demonstrate that a violation occurred, and the evidence presented in the record during the handling of this particular case is not sufficient.
After review of the applicable contract provisions, we find that the Claim must be denied.
M. M. $Hmn
Chairperson and Viral Member
