SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJ
Award No. 53
Case No. 53
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and
CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard System
Railroad Company)
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when,
without a conference having been held between
the Chief Engineering Officer and the General
chairman as required by Rule 2, it assigned
outside forces (Bobby Samper of Columbia
Scrap Company) to perform Maintenance of Way
work (removing rail and track related
material from the right of way) between Mile
Posts SLA660.7 and SLA663.7 on the Ocilla
Branch of the Fitzgerald Subdivision
beginning October 24 through December 2, 1995
and continuing [System File 26(20)(95)/12(96
0347) SSY].
2. As a consequence of the aforesaid
violation, Maintenance of Way employes D. A.
Calhoun, J. R. Keene, C.D. Coleman, S. M.
McWhorter and B. M. Young shall:
'... now be compensated, at their
respective pro rata rates for an equal
proportionate share of (1,856) straight
time hours, expended by the contractor
during the claimants' regular assigned
hours, and time and one-half rates for
an equal proportionate share of (944)
overtime hours, expended by the
contractor outside claimants' regular
assigned hours, of the total 2,800 man
hours thus far expended, by the
Carrier's use of the contractor's
employees, plus at the appropriates
[sic] rates for any and all additional
loss "'suffered, as a result of this
1
Carrier's actions.' (Emphasis in bold
in original)"
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence,
finds and holds as follows:
1. That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this
dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and
2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.
A careful review of the record indicates that the alleged
violation occurred on track that the Company had abandoned
effective as of July 1, 1995. An Interstate Commerce Commission
Decision, dated May 11, 1995, reflected that the track no longer
constituted a part of the Carrier's operating system because "the
only rail patron on the line has not sought rail service since
the line was restored to service in 1993." (Interstate Commerce
Commission Decision, Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 489x) at 2 (May
11, 1995) . )
In granting an exemption to the applicable prior approval
requirements, the Interstate Commerce Commission further
indicated:
By allowing CSXT to avoid the expense of
retaining and maintaining a line that
generates no traffic or revenue, an exemption
will promote safe and efficient rail
transportation, foster sound economic
conditions, and encourage efficient
management . . . .
The record substantiates that the disputed work began on October
24, 1995. As a result, the Carrier no longer had maintained the
line at the time outside forces performed the disputed work. In
the absence of any maintenance work, the Carrier did not violate
the applicable Scope Rule, which covers maintenance work, by
having the disputed work performed by outside forces. In this
regard, the record omits sufficient probative factual evidence
that the Carrier retained the type of control of the line to
support a finding that the disputed work constituted maintenance
work.
Due to the inapplicability under these special circumstances of
2
the Scope Rule, the Carrier did not have an
obligation to confer with representatives of the organization
before engaging the outside forces. In the absence of such a
duty, the Carrier did not commit a violation by failing to
participate in such a discussion.
For these reasons, the Award shall indicate that the Claim is
denied.
rmative
AWARD:
The Claim is denied.
onald Bartholoina~
Employe
~)M
ember
Dated:
R'bert L. Douglas
Chairman and Neutral Member
3
Avio S3
Patricia A. Madden
Carrier Member