AGREP.Y:ENT OF S EPTLV;BR 25, 19611


              Chicago, Illinois - July 10, 1967


PARTIES System Federation No. 95
 TO Railway Employees' Department
 DISPUTE: A.F.L. - C.I.O. - Machinists
 and
 Chicago. Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company
 STATEVLE14T That the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company violated -
 OF CLAIM: Article II of the September 25, 1964 Agreement when it sent three
 pieces of roadway equipment, namely, Track Liner No. 499, Tamper
 Jack No. 805 and Track Maintainer No. 861 off its' property to the
 Railroad Machinery Service Corporation, St. Louis,Missouri, for repairs.
 FINDINGS:. The unequivocal statement in Memo of Understanding dated January 7,
 1965 that disputes arising under ArticlesI and II of the Agreement
 dated September 25, 1966, are not subject to the standard time limit
 rule serves to summarily repudiate the carrier's assertion that the
 instant claim is outlawed by Rule 30 (c) of the CB9'v.Q Shop Crafts
 Schedule.'
 Proceeding to a consideration of the merits, there is no clear
 and convincing showing that the repair and overhaul of the three
 roadway equipment machines involved in this case could not feas
 ibly been dovetailed into the programmed work load at Havelock
 without delay to the completion of these or other machines beyond
 April 1, 1966.
 Considering that the major overhaul or repair was performed at
 Havelock during the winter of 1963-1964 on 52 pieces of equipment
 in the category of track liners, tamper jacks and track maintainers,
 and i~l pieces were similarly serviced at this facility in the
 winter of 1964-1965, it is reasonable to expect that the evidence
 would reveal how many roadway equipment machines were repaired or
                                        5 Q 4- 5 7o - .4wa v y


          overhauled at Havelock during; the period involved in this claim, i.e. the winter of 1965-1966. Then too, other relevant data should have been furnished tending to prove that the handlinof these three additional machines would mean that "(4) the required time of completion of the work cannot be met with the skills, personnel or equipment available on the property." Something more is required than the bare assertion that, "the required time for completion of tire work cannot be met with the skills, personnel or equipment available on the property;" to justify sub-contracting on the authority

            of Criteria (4), Article II, Section 1 of the Agreement of September -

            25, 1964. The failure to disclose such basic data is a violation

            of said Article II.


          Under the language of Article VI, Section 14 of said Agreement, the circumstance that the named claimants employed ..^t the Havelock Shop, Lincoln, Nebraska worked full-time and did not. suffer any wage loss during the period the work was performed by the sub-contractor, stands to prevent the directiong of a monetary recovery.


            Anart from other considerations, the failure of the four remaining named claimants (i.e. machinist apprentices on furlough from the Aurora, Illinois Shops) to notify the carrier of their readiness and availabiltiy to accept work assignments at the Havelock Shop, makes it readily apparent that they have no basis for complaint.


AWARD: 1. That in sub-contracting the repair and overhaul to Railroad
 Machinery Service Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, of its
 Track Liner No. 499, Track Maintainer 861 and Tamper Jack No.
 80.6, carrier violated the Agreement of September 25, 1964.
 2. That the claim of machinists E. A. Forst, D. L. Hermauce,
 G. L. Lamphear, P. Studer, fI. Wilson, G. Ilkenhons, machinists'
 helpers, L. td. Brock, R. Schermkau, L. J. Svitak, P. Biljsma,
 D. A. Schwartz and E. A. Elliott., employees at the Havelock . .
 Shops, Lincoln, Nebraska for a pro-rated share of the number
 of hours of the machinists' craft performed by Railroad Mach
 inery Service Corporation is denied in accordance with the
 above findings.
 3. That the claim of L. J. Britt, P4. N. Pettit, P. W. Schindlbeck
 and J. J. Woodworth, Machinists' apprentices on furlough from
 the Aurora Shops, Aurora, Illinois, is denied in accordance
 with the above findings.
 59A 570- &OD LIy
                        Adopted at Chicago, Illinois,


duly lo, 1967.

 a4d), I

 Har 1 M. Gilden
Employee members
Carrier Members