"That, on January 23 [s/b 28), 1988, the Carrier subcontracted out a 1984 Chevy 70-Unit No. 20107-RD to F. B. Hart Company for repairs as noted in Employe's Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3, thereby depriving Automotive and Works Equipment (A&WE) Machinist R. S. Jordan (hereinafter referred to as Claimant) from work that is contractually his.

That, Rule 40 of the Controlling Agreement as well as the Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Agreement dated September 25, 1964, have been violated.

That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant an amount equal to the time it took to complete repairs (labor cost: $567.00)."

In January 1988, the Carrier contracted out the repairs to a company truck #20107RD. The total cost of the repairs was $1,069.87 including sales tax. The labor portion of the bill was $567.00 for 12.6 hours.

On March 17, 1988, the Organization filed a claim alleging the Carrier violated the September 25, 1964 Agreement when it sent Chevy truck #20107RD to F.B. Hart Company for repairs.

There is no dispute that carrier employees normally perform repair work on company vehicles. There is also no dispute that the Carrier did not give advance notice of the contracting out of the repairs. During the handling of the Claim on the property, the Carrier offered to pay the Claimant 10% of the labor costs of $567.00 or $56.70. The organization rejected the offer.

Article VI Section 14 of the September 25, 1964 Agreement spells out the remedy for violations of the Subcontracting provision of the Agreement. If there is a wage loss because of alleged violation, the remedy is to make the employees whole. In this case, the Claimant suffered no wage loss. If there is a violation of the advance notice requirement the remedy is 10% of the billed man hours times the hourly rate of the employees who would have done the work. In this case, the billed man hours were 12.6 hours. Ten percent of those hours is 1.26 hours.

However, inasmuch as the Carrier has offered the Claimant $56.70 in this case, the Board will sustain the Claim and award the Claimant the $56.70. This decision is based on the facts and circumstances in this case and has no precedential value to the interpretation of the September 25, 1964 Agreement.

AWARD