S.B.A. '.do. 5.7C
 Award No. '==7 zlz7
 Case No. 501

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 570

ESTABLISHED UNDER

AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1964


PARTIES International Association of Machinists
 TO
 DISPUTE: and Aerospace Workers
 and
 The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 STATED?ENT i) That the Carrier violated Article II,
 of
 CLAIM: Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the September 25,
 1964 Mediation Agreement when they con
 tracted out the reboring and sleeving of



                                              .


    210 air compressors cylinders to the Triancale Er.g:ne Rebuilders Inc., Chicago, Illinois (also Preheat Welding Company, Rockville, Maryland) when Machinists were furloughed at the Cumberland Bolt and Forge Shop, Cumberland, Maryland.


2) That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
 pany be ordered to compensate furloughed
 Machinists W. G. Shobert, F. G. Zirk,
 P. Pabletti, G. W. Viands, J. Largeant,
 E. J. Hoffman, D. E. Wakefield, R. A. .
 DeLozier, H. W. Copen and J. P. McKenzie,
 for an amount equal to labor cost paid
 to said companies, for tl-·. reboring and
 sleeving of said cylinders.

 DISCUSSION The question at issue is whether Carrier vio
 AND
 FINDINGS:. lated Article II of the September 25, 1964,
 Agreement, when it contracted out from its
 Cumberland facilities the work of sleeving air compressor cy
 linders while ten machinists were on furlough from the Cum
 berland Bolt and Forge Shop. It is Petitioner's position
 that the work belongs to machinists and that it is a clear

                      - 2 -

                                          .sQ(a .~?D ~ ~cuP y27


breach of Article II for Carrier ~.o havp it narfcsrrt--; by outside firms.

 Carrier contends, on the other hand, that the claim cannot be upheld since 1) Petitioner did not handle it in the normal manner on the property and therefore failed to meet the requirements of the Railway Labor Act and September 25, 1964 Agreement, and 2) neither the managerial skills nor essential equipment are available on the property.

 Carrier bases its first ground on the fact that the General Chairman proceeded to file the claim with this Board without first giving Carrier the opportunity to respond after the parties' conference of October 2.2, 1975. It maintains that Carrier advised the General Chairman at that conference that it would investigate the feasibility of machinists performing the sleeving work. According to Carrier, by filing the claim before he heard from Carrier in that regard, the General Chairman acted prematurely and did not afford-the parties a full opportunity to explore settlement possibilities.

 Carrier's first point is unpersuasive. The claim had been before it over six months at the time the October 22, 1975 meeting was held and thereafter the General Chairman waited an additional seven weeks without any indication from Carrier that it was prepared to suggest a formula for resolving the dispute. while it might have been better practice

                      - 3 -

                                      ,SQg 570 - -4w o e-/a7,


for. the Genc,-al 'nairman to have notified Carrier before proceeding to the Board, his failure to 3o so or to continue tr c..ait for Carrier to communicate with hirn does not warrant dismissal of the claim.

 The dispute regarding the merits of the case stems from a change in Carrier's method of reclaiming air compressor cylinders. Formerly, until the summer of 1974, an essential part of the reclaiming process was for machinists at Cumberland to rebore the inside diameter of the worn cylinder to 0.030 inch or 0.060 inch oversize; 0.030 or 0.060 inch pistons then were utilized.

 Under that method, according to Carrier, cylinders would have to be scrapped when they became unserviceable after having been bored to 0.060 inch: in addition, Carrier was required to maintain an inventory of three different sizes of pistons and rings (standard, 0.030 inch and 0.060 inch). Because of these problems, Carrier contends, it decided to reclaim cylinders by having a cylinder liner inserted that would return the inside diameter of the cylinder to standard size. Carrier maintains that by using the sleeving method, Carrier would only require an inventory of standard size pistons and rings and could resleeve the cylinder rather than scrap it after it had reached the second oversize level. None of the statementF 7ontained in this paragraph arg controverted in the record.
                                            Sail- s~o ~d ya7


It is undisputed that in!-i-ead of assigning its own machinists to the sleeving opert_t~nn, Carr_er farme.z out that work to Preheat Welding Company on September 19, 1974, and to Triangle Engine Rebuild Company on September 27, 1974 and February 13, 1975. These subcontracts were bound to provoke controversy since machinists had formerly performed cylinder reclaimation work and ten machinists had been furloughed.

 However, Article II Section 1 permits subcontracts when managerial skills are not available on the property. In its letter of reply of August 22, 1975, to the claim initiated on the property, Carrier unambiguously stated that it was contracting out the work of reclaiming cylinders by the sleeving process, that such work had never before been performed at its Cumberland Shop and that the management at that location is not skilled in handling the process.

 Although that August 22 letter squarely raised the issue, no evidence has been presented that management'was familiar with the sleeving process or that there was no substantial distinction between handling the former reclamation method or the new process. The subcontracting of machinists' work when machinists are on furlough is a matter of considerable concern but there is no basis for sustaining this claim in the absence of facts that disprove Carrier's presentation.

                      - 5 -

                                      SQIJ- S-?o- ~p 5'a7 - ,


Lle c, snot ra;. .;y hold on this r._cox : that Carrier is not at liberty to change cy~inder reclamation techniques to a process that is more economical and efficient. Nor can we conclude, in the absence of additional details, that Carrier was obligated to experiment with its own managerial forces during the first few months the new process was used rather than to call upon outside firms familiar with the operation to perform the work. If Carrier's own management possessed the necessary skills to handle the process during the September 1974 to March 19,75 period or if the differences between the old and new processes are insubstantial, those factors should have been established in the record. Mere statements of conclusions and characterizations are not helpful to this Board in resolving a sharply defined issue.

                                                        1

In the light of this record, we have no alternative but to deny the claim. Since machinists were not "currently performing" sleeving work at the time of the subcontracts, the notice requirements of Article II Section 2 are inapplicable.

 In arriving at our decision, we have not given weight to Carrier's contention that essential skills were unavailable; the contention was not made on the property, so far as the record shows.

                      - 6 -

                                            ,S(3 ~'~ -Awo `-/a7


                    H W A R A


          Claim denied.


          Adorn-d et C'~icero, Illinois, Dime 6, 1977.

This Board, aft?r consideration of the disP»te identified above, hereby order.,-, that an award favorable to the Petitioner should not be made. The claim is disvosed of as set forth in the foregoing award.

                -

                  :.a_ plU --.hi. 'ne;avOn,

                  Neutral Member e -


                                        r

                              .


                                      y.h

Z7

                                                S.B.A. No. 570


- Award No. 427
 ' Case No. 501

                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 570


                Established Under

                Agreement of Septembe1964

                Dissenting opinion of LEON' Member

                To Award No. 427


        The award is in palpable error and requires dissent. in all of the handling on the property it was never disputed that machinists have historically machined bushings (sleeves) and bored holes for same in all types, sizes, and shapes of component parts. in spite of this unrefuted fact the majority states in pertinent part:

        "Since machinists were not 'currently performing sleevincL work at the time of the subcontracts.." The agreement states "work of a type currently performed" and this most certainly then was "of a type". The agreement doesn't state that the work has to be of the same size, kind, color.name etc. or any other assinine assumptions or self imposed conditions.

        The majority further held that the Carrier lacked skilled supervision. This contention is equally as baseless when the facts based that the employes perform the work and have done so historically, as hereinbefore stated. These same majorities have held before the N.R.A.B. that the Carrier has the sole right to pick their supervision and that such supervision doesn't have to come from the crafts and/or class supervised. Now to hold that they lack ceftain skills or expertize is like rewarding the Carrier for their own shortsightedness and deficient policies.


            This criteria on skilled supervision is so baseless that

SBA 570-Dissent -2- Award 427
 Case No. 501 the Carrier's Conference Committee made an agreement that it would not be used as argument subsequent to March 12, 1975. The majority was aware of this fact and should have considered it even though the instant claim had arisen approximately 15 days prior thereto. This award is therefore now without any precedential impact whatever and was certainly a shallow reason or excuse for a majority to grasp to deny a proper claim. This is especially horrendous in consideration of the fact that machinist craft members were furloughed who could have and should have performed this work.

      We vigorously dissent.


                                George R. DeHague

                                Labor Member