S.B.A. No. 570
Award No. 198
Case No. 256

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMS_NT N0. 570

ESTAB'4tSHED UNDER

AGREMT OF SEA. 25, 1964

Chicago, Illinois,

PARTIES
T0
DIS~:

STATEMENT
OF
CZAIM:

December 18, 1969

System Federation No. 2
Railway Employes' Department
AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)

and

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Article n of the September 25, 1964 Agreement when it subcontracted to Western Union Telegraph Company, the installation and maintenance of fifteen (15) teletype machines at North Little Rock, Arkansas.

That further, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Section 2, Article II of said Agreement by failing to give advance notice of intent to contract out and the reasons therefor, together with supporting data, of the above described work.

3. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate the Telephone Maintainers at Little Rock, Arkansas at the overtime rate of pay for the same number of hours the Western Union Telegraph Company employees performed such work.

DISCUSSION On or about July 15, 1968 Western Union Telegraph Company
AND employee installed fifteen (15) teletype machines in Car
FINDINGS: Tier's office at Little Rock, Arkansas. The machines are
owned by Western Union and they were installed on a lease
balls. The lease arrangement included installation.
Employee contend that such installation is subcontracting
under Article II of the Mediation Agreement of September 25, 1964. Carrier
argues that it 3s not subcontracting but is rather a technological and opera
tional change permitted in Article I of that Agreement. Since no employee were
displaced as a result of such installation and none were deprived of employment,
Section 2 of Article I of that Agreement 3s not applicable.

S.B.A. No. 570

Award No. 198

Case No. 256

_ 2 _

Protective benefits under Secticn 2 of Article I apply to "employees who are deprived of eT-,lcI-j)ent or placed in a worse position with respect to compensation and rules gurrerning working conditions as a result of", among other things, the:

"d, Lease or purchase of equipment or component parts thereof, the installation, operation, servicing or repairing of which is to be performed by the lessor o·,.· seller;

Leasing of equipment is not subcontracting. The two terms are not synonymous and the two conditions are separate and distinct business ventures. In a leasing situation the lessee--the Carrier here--has no title to the equipment or apparatus installed while work is performed by one party on equipment or apparatus owned by another party. in Award No. 63 this Board held that:

"in order for the Carrier to be able to engage in 'subcontracting' it must first legally own, or have dominion aver, the subject matter of the 'res' of the subcontract. The carrier cannot legally subcontract a vehicle to which it has no title."

Prom the undisputed facts in the record, it is the finding of this Board that this carrier does not legally own or does it have dominion over the fifteen (15) teletype machines and thus could not subcontract the installation work. They were installed under a leasing arrangement permissible under Article I and not under Article II of the Agreement. Since no employe was displaced or adversely affected as provided in said Article I, no violation of the Agreement exists.

AWARD

Claim denied.

Adopted at Chicago, Illinois, December 18, 1969

S.B.A. No. 570
Award No. 198
Case No. 256

Neutral Member

--c-t

Carrier Member Bnploye Member

I~.U'at-~, cd...~ooc)...

Carrier Member ploye Member