SPECIAL BOARD 0F AD,: g37 :' PLO.
570
ESTABLISfwED Lf:DM
AGR_Imr~.IIENT OF SEPT4·3ER
25, 1964
Chicago, Illinois - April
28, 1972
PARTIES System Federation No. 16
TO Railway Employes' Department
DISPUTE: AFL-CIO - Sheet Metal Workers
and
Norfolk and Western. Railway Company
ST.4TE<·MITT That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated X-,4cle TI
OF CLAIM: of the September
25, 1964
Agreement when it subcc:tractac zo
Coley & Petersen, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, to perfor- z=eet
metal workers pipefitters work of installing copper
p__e
consisting of from one-half
(2)
inch up to two
(2)
inc^es in
size including related fittings and other work generally
recognized as pipefitters work in connection wit'.^. a heating
system in Pier
5
Office Building Lamberts Point Dock, Norfol;:,
Virginia.
The Railway violated said agreement by failure- .o give advance
notice of intent and reason for the subcontraczi-g a7:o:g with
supporting data. .
That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the
Sheet Metal Workers listed below for the man hours involved
in the instaLiation of this pipe work by the ccntractor at
the pro rata rate, to be equally divided among the foL=:;_-g
claimants employed at Lamberts Point Shop, Norfolk, V=a n:.a:
CLAIMANTS: E. L.
Hurt
F. A. Nash
E. D. Scott
C. W. Ohge
J. S. Dundalow, Jr.
a
DISCITSSIO"t This case is very similar to the one covered by our A:.a_._
AND No.
295,
involving the same Parties. That case conce_nei
FI171MGS: the replacement of an air-conditioning system. ?::e p=ese:_
case concerns the replacement o=' a heating system at Carries=
office building at its Lamberts Point Docks in Lorfolk, Virginia.
The basic facts and the contentions of t',^.e Parties are PI-ost
identical in the two cases, and need not be repeated here. Consecuer_' y, our
findings are the same. Principal among those findings are tat much of Z;he
won:: is of a type set forth in the Classification of -:-fork Rule, that to
project must be regarded as new construction rather than -ainnte^ance, anal
5att
s5-7a
Case No.
361
-2- Award 1:0.299
that
the Carrier is not obligated to break doom a significant new construction project into various parts to permit assignment of its own
crafts.
We further find that the Carrier was at fault in failing to
provide the supporting data requested by the General Chairman, as provided
in Article II, Section
3
of the Mediation Agreement--a dereliction of duty,
for which no specific penalty is provided.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Adopted at Chicago, Illinois - April 28, 1972.
G (i