(b) Carrier deemed it wise, for reasons of safety and efficiency to contract this work to a Company who could furnish the required specialized personnel and tools to cope with the intricate problems involved, with safety and efficiency.

(c) Had the work not been contracted to Hill Electric Company, it would have been performed by Carrier's Shop Extension employes (Sheet Metal Workers and Electricians) by reason of its specific inclusion in the classification rules for those employes in the Shop Crafts Agreement effective August 1, 1945. Those employes, by their action, concurred in the decision to contract this work.

In conclusion, Carrier states that:

(1) The instant claim should be dismissed because vitally interested third parties have not, to the Carrier's knowledge, been given notice of the pendency of this dispute. The Board cannot therefore render a valid award, in the absence of the third party notice required by the Railway Labor Act.

(2) All of the work herein involved belonged, by reason of its specific inclusion in the Classification Rules of another Agreement, to other employes covered by that Agreement.

(3) Carrier's judgment in contracting certain work to the Hill Electric Company was concurred in by the Carrier's Shop Extension employes, who would have normally performed it by contractual right, and is sustained by the principles of this Board that contracted work must be considered as a whole and not broken down into its component parts and that where special tools, equipment or skill is required, the work may be contracted.

Carrier respectfully requests the Board to proceed accordingly.

All that is contained herein is either known or available to the Employes or their representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier installed a car-retarder system at Pueblo, Colorado in 1950. Employes in the Signal Department installed the air reservoirs and the air lines to the retarders. Carrier's Shop Extension forces installed the two compressors and brought the air to a connection with the air reservoirs. An outside contractor was used to install and wire the two electric motors and the necessary fans to drive and cool the air compressors. Petitioner contends the work performed by the Shop force and the outside contractor is covered by the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement, and that Carrier's action in permitting other employes to perform such work was therefore in violation of the Agreement.

The subject car-retarder system at Pueblo was only the second such installation made by the Carrier. In making its first installation at Argentine, Kansas in 1949 the Carrier also assigned the compressor installation work to employes outside the Signalmen's Agreement. In this prior instance, however, the Carrier's shop Electricians performed the work which was given to an outside contractor at Pueblo. Nevertheless, the Petitioner did not protest the Carrier's failure to assign the installation of the compressors and associated equipment at Argentine to employes in the Signal Department. The subject Agreement also applied to this prior instance.

The Scope Rule contains no express reference to the work here in dispute. In view of this fact it is proper to examine the conduct of the parties under the Rule to ascertain their mutual intent. The Petitioner's acquiescence in the noted work assignment at Argentine is the only "past practice" in this respect. Under these circumstances we are unable to conclude that the work in question is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Agreement.

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD