The above named employes, with one or two exceptions, were cut off in force reduction or working in a lower class than their seniority entitled them to work in and thus their rights have been violated under the rules of the current Agreement, effective May 1, 1960 as revised and amended, and each claimant should be made whole insofar as pay, vacation rights, Health and Welfare benefits or other benefits are concerned."

"The contractor's forces built one bridge approximately 6 miles from Cumberland, Kentucky, finishing that bridge on or about October 16, 1962. This bridge, which is a three span steel bridge, is supported by two poured concrete abutments approximately 2 feet by 12 feet by 18 feet and two concrete piers approximately 4 feet by 15 feet by 18 feet. The Contractor's forces built the piers and abutments and set the steel spans thereon, however, B&B Department employes are scheduled to place the deck, that is, the supporting timbers for the track, on the bridge.

The second bridge built by the contractor's forces is located approximately 7s/a miles from Cumberland, Kentucky, and will be about the same, if not exactly like, the bridge described above.

Claimant M. C. Herber does not hold seniority as B&B Foreman, but is fully qualified for such work and has done quite a bit of relief work in the foreman's class due to vacations, sickness, etc.

There is no reason why employes named herein could not have performed the work in question because machines and other equipment were readily available and could have performed all of the work, including the setting of the spans on these bridges.

The spans involved are approximately 10 feet by 25 feet (2 spans) and 10 feet by 37 feet (1 span).

It cannot be argued that equipment belonging to the railroad company could not have gotten to the site of these bridges simply for the reason that the contractor succeeded in getting his equipment there for use on the bridges and the same would follow insofar as the equipment belonging to the railroad is concerned.

The railroad company has concrete mixers of sufficient capacity to have mixed the concrete for the pouring of the piers and abutments and they have cranes of suffcient capacity to fill the forms needed for the pouring of such piers and abutments."

Without in any way prejudicing its position, carrier submits that that portion of Section 2 of employes' claim pertaining to Health, Welfare benefits, vacation rights, and other benefits are concerned should be disregarded as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Railroad Adjustment Board.

In view of the circumstances as set forth in the foregoing, carrier asserts the claim is without merit and should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: In January, 1962, Carrier contracted with CodellOman, Contractors, for the construction of a roadbed and drainage structures which included bridges for an industrial spur track on Carrier's Cumberland Valley Division.

The Employes protested the contractor building the bridges and doing the grading in connection therewith, alleging that such work should have been performed by employes in Carrier's Bridge and Building Subdepartment.

Claim was properly presented, on behalf of the named employes, and appealed up to the Carrier's highest appellate officer.

The Carrier takes the position that the Agreement permits the contracting out of work and that it has been their practice, over a period of years, to do so. In their submission they state that this Board has denied similar claims.

Carrier contends that the exception contained in Rule 2(f) is applicable in this case. Rule 2(f) provides:

"RULE 2.

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE 1

2(f) 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."

The dispute in this case is whether or not the Carrier had ". . adequate equipment laid up and forces laid off . . ." The Carrier states it could not meet these conditions and the Employes attempt to prove that they could.

We have carefully reviewed the records in three previous cases involving the same parties and rules. Awards 11085 (Boyd), 11289 (McMahon) and 13979 (Williams). In each of these awards the Board denied the Employe's claim.

We can find no substantial difference between these previous cases and the case at bar. The Board in these prior awards found that the record contained probative evidence presented by the Carrier to sustain it's position. The evidence contained in the record here is similar.

We feel that the Carrier under the provisions of Rule 2(f) was entitled to contract this work. We will deny the claim.

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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD