S.B.A. 140. 570
 AWARD NO. 488
 CASE N0. 572

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST:-_MT 110. 570
ESTABLISHED UNDER
AGR=·tEiT OF SEPTZ_?3ER 25, 1964
Chicago, Illinois - J VNZZ .24, I`Tfho

 PARTIES
 _TO

 DISSPU7"E:
System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'
 Department - A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Electrical "orkers

 and

 Consolidated Pail Corporation

 STATZ~EENT "1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) violated
 OF CLAZd: the Controlling Agreement of System Federation 103, the
 Mediation Agreement of September 25, 1954, Article II,
 Section 1, 2, 3, and 4 when it improperly contracted out
 the work of the electrical craft, as outlined in Rule 140
 of the Controlling Agreement, to an outside contractor at
 Mound Road Yard, Michigan.

 "2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate
 Electricians J. Kochan, T. Hayman, D. Parish and D.
 Zellerino to amount of monies that they would have earned
 had they not been deprived of their contractual rights to
 perform the work granted to an outside contractor."

 OPINION On Yarch 27, 1978, Carrier informed the General Chairman that it in
 AND tended to subcontract the construction of a 44' x 50' one-story
 FIaDI:1GS: concrete block yard office building at the Mound Road Yard in Warren,
 Michigar. The estimated cost of the project was $30,000 -- $23,C00
 for electrical work and -$20,CO0 for sheet metal work. Carrier con
 tends that the sc)ccn'1:octia.-~ c: this pro_ect was done in accordance wit!: its

                                            CASE f0. 572


right to do so under the September 25, 1964 Agreement. Petitioner alleges otherwise and, by letter dated Octcber 13, 1973, filed the instant claim.

Carrier contends that the claim rams untimely filed and should be dismissed. This Board, in a long lire of awards on timeliness, has ruled that the st&ndard time limit rule does not apply to problems of emDloyee protection and subcontracting covered under the September 25, 1964 Agreement. We so rule in this instance.


As to the merits of this case, this Board has often co.Tented on the points raised by Carrier and has upheld many clairs based on the same or similar arguments as are proffered by Carrier in this case.


This Board has generally held in cases involving the construction of new facilities that Carriers are not obligated to piecemeal the contract to permit the assignment of a part of the work to Carrier's employees. We have stated our rationale for this concept in numerous awards. For example, see a recent decision, Award So. 433, that cites further cases in support of the Board's position.

To further support Carrier's position in this instance, Carrier argued local ordinances required that licensed personnel and a resgistered

contractor were required in order to do construction in the city of Warren. Carrier says it does not employ licensed employees, such as were required,

nor is it a registered electrical contractor. These assertions were not ref uted by tt-- employees during the handling of this case on the property.

Based on these facts, it is clear that Carrier did not violate the Agreement when it subcontracted for the building involved in this dispute.


This Board, after consideration of the disi,ute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Petitioner should not be made.

The claim is disposed of as set forth in the foregoing.

                      A W A R D


          Claim denied.


          Adopted at Chicago, Illinois, ;z

                                    ~~ 9~d

R dney E. Dennis - Neutral Member

 Carrier Members

 S.B.A. N0. 570
 AWARD N0. 483
 CASE N0. 572