(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without prior notification to the General Chairman, it assigned the work of remodeling a portion of the aeventf floor of the General Office Building at Chicago, Illinois to outside forces (System File C-62-B-6
(2) Paint Foreman A. E, Bissell and the members of his gang (327) during the period involved her prior to March 6, 1969.

 (3) B&B Foreman U. Gioiosa and the members of his gang (b320) during the period involved here each be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates for each day of the instant violation, excluding all dates prior to March 6, 1969,

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute raises an issue that has been presented to this
 Board on many occasions: the Organization claims that the Carrier has contracted out work within the scope of the applicable schedule agreement without giving Organization of the Carrier's intention to contract out work. In this case the Carrier contracted out the work of remodeling a portion of the seventh floor of the General Office Building in Chicago, Illinois, to outside forces,. The work involved included carpentry, masonry and painting work which the Organization contends was embraced within the Scope Rule of the Agreement.

 This Board has held that the exclusivity doctrine is of no effect in deciding disputes involving Article IV of the May 17, 1968 Agreement, but has also denied monetary payments inhere no loss was shown. See Awards 18305 Dugan, 18306 Dugan, 18860 Devine, 18687 Rimer, 18773 Edgett, 18714 Devine, 18716 Devine (involving the same parti 19154 Dugan, 19191 O'Brien, 19399 O'Brien.

                    Docket Humber MW-19533


This Board finds that nothing in Article IV changes the rights of the parties to sub-contract out. The Carrier should have given the General Chairman prior notice of its intention. Based on the precedents cited above, this Board concludes that the agreement was violated, but there were no monetary damages.

        FINDINGS:The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A w A R D


        Paragraph One of the Claim is sustained.


        Paragraphs Two and Three of the Claim are denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4C 4.

            Az/~ i

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973.

 i