not hire such work to be done by other than Maintenance of Way employes. Obviously, such a conclusion is absurd. It would require the Carrier to use only Maintenance of Way employes to build a huge new bridge, an elaborate station or large buildings and numerous other kinds of large Capital improvements. No reasonable people would contract with such a result in mind for it is clear that for such large construction work the Carrier would not have the supply of men of different skills required nor the special equipment."

In subsequent discussions the Organization representatives stated they felt the Carrier should confer with them on each project and reach an under standing as to whether it should be contracted or performed by MW&S forces, and we were informed that this arrangement was in effect on one of our neighboring lines. It was very clear that what the Organization wanted was the right to tell the Carrier what work it could and could not contract. As this would be taking over a managerial prerogative, disregarding the contract provisions and the past practices on the property in contracting projects (something that was never contemplated by the working agreement), the Carrier declined this proposal. This feature is covered in Third Division Award 5044, penultimate paragraph of Opinion; also in fourth paragraphs of Opinions in Third Division Award 5331, and Fourth Division Award 733.

It is clear that failing to secure a new rule on the property the Organization has embarked upon a campaign of filing claims with the Third Division involving the contracting of work in the hope that it will secure sustaining Awards which, in effect, would give them a new rule. This is, of course, not a function of the Board, as explained in Third Division Awards 4585, 4259, 5517, 5597 and others.

The claim of the Organization, which was initially filed with Division Engineer in behalf of employes of Carpenter Gangs under certain named foremen, changed in appeal to Superintendent to cover employes of all Carpenter Gangs on the North Florida Division, and changed in filing with the Third Division to include all employes holding seniority on the Carpenter Gangs on the North Florida Division, is now very unusual in that it would include both employes working on all Carpenter Gangs and those who are off on leave of absence. There are several such men in military service who retain their seniority. Carrier does not see how these men could have any claim for any work on the property because they certainly could not be classed as being available for work. None of the other unnamed claimants on the North Florida Division were adversely affected on account of the project being contracted. They were all fully and regularly employed on MW&S work during the period March 1951-October 1951, inclusive. In addition to full employment of such regular building or carpenter forces, including the regularly assigned gang at West Jacksonville, an extra carpenter gang was put on at West Jacksonville on February 5, 1951 (which is still employed) to take care of additional maintenance work that arose in connection with the new shop facilities.

As pointed out by Carrier there has been no violation of the agreement with the Organization, there is no merit to the claim and Carrier respectfully requests that it be denied.

Carrier affirmatively states that all data contained herein has been made known to or discussed with representatives of the Organization.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier contracted to farm out certain work claimed by the employes to the Elliott Building Company, at its West Jacksonville, Florida, shop. The docket is in conflict as to when the work started. However, it started sometime in March or April of 1951, and was finished in October, 1951.

The Employes claim that part of the work performed falls within their Agreement; namely, the construction of an addition to a washroom, and the paving of the wheel storage yard.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Award 6199, even though the work involved is somewhat different, the same principles are applicable. Here again we cannot find sufficient facts to warrant a conclusion that the Carrier has sustained the burden of establishing any exceptions to the general rule, that Rule which holds that the Carrier may not contract out work, the performance of which is of a type embraced within an agreement with its employes.

The claim as to monetary loss will be sustained in so far as it relates to the total man-hours consumed by the employes of the Elliott Building Company, while engaged in the work referred to as outlined in this opinion which should have been performed by Carrier's maintenance of way employes.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD