(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used outside forces to repair the roof on Pier 12 (System Files 700-5, 700-19, 700-23, 700-57, 700-66).

 (2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the National Agreement of may 17, 1968 when it did not give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intention to contract said work.

 (3) CBM Foreman C. Moore, Assistant Foreman C. Mlcak, Mechanics T. E. Curtis, J. Meyer, Jr. and P. Fontono each be allowed fifty-six (56) hours of pay at their respective time and one-half rates for October 17, 18, 24, November 7, 8, 21 and 22, 1970 because of the aforesaid violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is grounded in part upon Petitioner's
 assertion that Carrier violated the Scope, and Hours
 Paid For, provisions of the Agreement between the parties when it used
 employes of an outside contractor to repair the roof on Pier 12 located
 at its facilities in Galveston, Texas. It is undisputed that employes
 of the outside contractor performed repair of the roof from mid-October
 to mid-November, 1970. The pertinent provisions of the Agreement read
 as follows:







                  Docket Number MW-20082


              "3. Electrical Department employes as now constituted."


Article 14 of the above-mentioned Agreement reads as follows:

                "ARTICLE 14., Hums PAID FOR


        Rule 1. Except by mutual agreement between the management and employes' representative; hours of work of employes shall not be reduced in order to permit company to employ those not members of organization represented or to let by contract work of maintenance, construction or demolishing.,,


In order to sustain its position on the merits of its claim, Petitioner must demonstrate that the Agreement clearly reserves unto it an exclusive right to the work complained of; or in the absence of such Agreement reservation, probative evidence that custom, practice and tradition have reserved such work to it exclusively. (Awards 18471, 19032, 19421, 19516, 19576, et al.) In this context, the provision of the Agreement primarily relied upon by Petitioner is a general Scope rule. No exclusive reservation of work is found in this rule. Accordingly, Petitioner must demonstrate such reservation by force of custom and past practice. In this connection, Petitioner has shown that similar work was being performed by Carrier's M of W employes on Pier 11 at the time that the contractor was repairing Pier 12. This evidence is probative but not determinative of the issue of exclusive practice. On this point the record is more compellingly persuasive that roof repa and regularly subcontracted to outside roofing contractors by Carrier. Accordingly, we must conclude that Petitioner has not met the burden of proof requisite to claim the work is exclusively reserved to it.

 In asserting Agreement violations, Petitioner also relies on the prohibition against unilateral reduction in hours of work for reasons listed in Rule 1 of Article 14. On the record before us we are not persuaded that employes'hours of work were reduced as a result of the roof repair subcontracting. Moreover, to whatever extent this Article 14 agreement is premised upon the claim of exclusivity dealt with supra, it similarly must fail.

 Petitioner also alleges an independent violation of the procedural requirements of Article IV of the National Agreement of May 17, 1968. The record shows and Carrier admits that no advance written notice of its intention to contract the roof repair work was provided the General Chairman. A clear violation of Article IV is thereby shown.
                  Award Number 20275 Page 3

                  Docket Number MW-20082


Finally, Petitioner requests monetary damages for the alleged breaches of agreement. On this point we must advert to our recent Award 20071 (Eischen) involving the same parties and essentially the same issue:

        "We are aware of the divergence of awards on this difficult and often enigmatic problem as it re IV. As we have stated on prior occasions, we are loathe to treat contractual violations by simple reprimand. Nonetheless, this Board is not empowered to add from or alter existing agreements. In regard to damages, the record herein shows no provision of the Agreement which specifies monetary relief for breach of Article IV; and, no proven loss of earnings or work opportunity. In these circumstances we are constrained to deny the compensation requested in Claim (3). (See, e.g.,Awards 19657, 19574, 19399, 19254, 19056, 18687, 18305)."


        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 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 Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Part (1) of the claim is denied.


        Part (2) of the claim is sustained.


        Part (3) of the claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
              ,e Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of June 1974.