(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement cbhen, without a conference having been held between the Assistant Vice President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way and the General Chairman as required by Rule 2, it assigned or otherwise permitted outside forces to perform painting work on its depot and related structures at Kissimmee, Florida on December 9, 10 and 11, 1975 gystem File 12-2 (76-15) J3/C-4(10)-Tampa Div.-27.

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, each B&B employe furloughed on the claim dates in Group A on the Jacksonville and Tampa Divisions Seniority Districts be allowed pay at their respective pro-rata rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by outside forces in performing the work referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: As part of the nation's Bi-Centennial celebration
 the Chamber of Commerce of Kissimmee, Florida,
 contacted the carrier seeking permission to paint the depot at
 Kissimmee red, white and blue. The Chamber of Commerce intended to
 provide the paint and labor by using "volunteer" labor from the state
 prison farm. The Carrier granted the Chamber permission to do the
 work. The Carrier states the work done represented an aggregate of
 72 hours.
 i

 The Employes contend that the Carrier's action clearly violated Rule 2 which reads as follows:



        "except it is recognized that, in specific instances, certain work that is to be performed requires special skills not possessed by the employees and the.,use of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier. In such instances, the Assistant VicePresident, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which work will be performed.


        "It is further understood and agreed that although it is not the intention of the Company to contract construction work in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department when Company forces and equipment are adequate and available, it is recognized that, under certain circumstances, contracting of such work, may be necessary. In such instances, the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman will confer and reach an understanding setting forth the conditions under which the work will be performed. In such instances, consideration will be .given by the Assistant VicePresident, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman to performing by contract the grading, drainage and certain other Structures Department work of magnitude or requiring special skills not possessed by the employees, and the use of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier and to performing track work and other Structures Department work with Company forces."


The Carrier defends their action on two fronts. They argue that their granting permission to the Chamber of Commerce was not in the nature of a contract and was not within the meaning of "contracting" as used in Rule 2. Secondly, they argue that the Chamber's painting of the depot was only beautification or decoration and not "maintenance work" within the meaning of Rule 2.

 We feel compelled to reject both arguments. To say that decoration or beautification of this nature is not maintenance is to draw a distinction without a difference. This painting obviously had
                    Award Number 22274 Page 3

                    Docket Number MEW-22148


to add to the longevity of at least the building's surface. Similarly, it is equally meaningless to say that an agreement, verbal or otherwise, to have work of this type p
        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


        Claim sustained:


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January 1979.