OPINION OF BOARD: In order to improve rail conditions by having fewer rail joints, the Carrier decided to experiment with the welding of rail through the use of a high voltage electric welding process. Accordingly, on or about September 24, 1958, and continuing until about November 26, 1958, the Carrier assigned this work to a contractor, the National Cylinder Gas Company of Chicago, whose employes held no seniority under the effective Agreement between the parties here concerned. Claim was instituted on behalf of two named welders and two named welder helpers on November 24, 1958, that they be allowed eight hours' pay at their respective straight time rates for each day beginning September 24, 1958, and for each day thereafter on which rail welding work was performed at Mobile, Alabama, by forces employed by the contractor.

It is contended by the Organization that under Rules 1, 3, 4(f) and 38(b) of the current Agreement, the said work is reserved by the above rules to employes holding seniority in any and all Subdepartments of the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department; the same is specifically reserved to the employes of Welding Subdepartment (Rules 1 and 3(d)) and our particular attention is called to Welders Special Rule 38 (b) which reads as follows:

"Maintenance of way welders will be used to do all welding that is done on materials or parts of tracks, bridges or buildings, except for materials or parts shipped into shops or other departments and work belonging to the mechanical or signal department employes." (Emphasis ours.)

The Carrier argues that the case is primarily a Scope Rule ca-e and takes the position that "If there was no violation of the Scope Rule, then the other Rules of the Agreement are neither applicable nor involved in the dispute". In support of the quoted proposition, Carrier cites Award 6269, the pertinent language of which is as follows:

"It is, therefore, the opinion of the Board that Carrier has in no way violated the provisions of the current agreement. There being no violation of the Scope Rule, it follows there was no violation of other rules, as alleged by the Organization."

In our opinion, Award 6269 is limited to its facts, is distinguishable from the case at bar, and does not stand for the broad proposition advanced by the Carrier.

Specifically, the Carrier places reliance on paragraph (h) of Rule 2, which reads:

The railroad company may contract work when it does not have adequate equipment laid up and forces laid off, sufficient both in number and skill, with which the work may be done."

Carrier reasons that 2(h) supports the Carrier's action because it alleges it did not have the equipment with which to perform the electrical welding work here involved; it did not have such equipment laid up; nor did it have forces laid off "sufficient in number and skill to operate the equipment."

It is interesting to note in connection with the argument advanced by the Carrier that it did not have forces "sufficient in number and skill"; that the record does contain information that the Carrier did use certain of its own employes (1 Electric Welder, 1 Electric Welder Helper, 1 Web base Magnaflux operator, and others) in connection with the performance of the work now in dispute. In making its decision to experiment with the welding of rail through the high voltage electric process, Carrier advised the contractor of its desire to use its own employes. The contractor, not the Carrier, took the position that Carrier's employes were not qualified to operate the equipment.

The matter of contract construction finds the parties far apart: the Carrier and Organization each construe the instant contract differently, and each advances concepts of contractual construction, studded with citations in support of their conflicting positions, as follows: The Organization argues in effect on two levels, viz:-

A) It is a well accepted rule of contract construction that the intention of the parties must be determined from the four corners of the contract.

B) It is equally accepted, as a universal rule of contract construction, that special rules prevail over general rules. (See Awards 6382, 4496, 5942, 6003, 6137, 6278, 6374, 6567, 6651, 6654 and 7857.)

Applying these principles to the facts at bar, we agree that the Organization correctly reads its general Scope Rule together with Rules 3(d), 4(f) and 38(b) since all these provisions deal with the same subject matter, i.e.: -employes in the welding subdepartment. The language of 38(b) explicitly states that "Maintenance of way welders will be used to do all welding on materials or parts of tracks * * * " and the record does not seem to support the exception contained in the balance of this rule. It should be further noted that the word "will" is mandatory and not permissive; the word "all" needs no definition; the exception in 2(h) nowhere states that Rule 2 is an exception to Rule 38(b) which could have been done if it was intended by the parties to further limit Rule 38(b). It seems clear that the Carrier, by the explicit terms of Special Rule 38(b), when read together with the other rules dealing with welding employes, had reserved the work in question to the said employes.

The Claimants, therefore, had the contractual right to either perform the work in question or they were entitled to be paid for not being permitted to perform work reserved to them by the Agreement of the parties.

Carrier points to numerous rulings of the Third Division which hold that, even in the absence of rules such as 2(h), work may be contracted out when special equipment is required. We make no comment with respect to these rulings because no cases have been cited to us which are on all fours with the case at bar. Our decision is bottomed on the fact that the current Agreement between the parties contains Special Rule 38(b), which, in our view, distinguishes the instant case from those cited by the Carrier.

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:

JH