(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TD DISPUTE: (.
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 _ ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT CF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Gassier violated the Agreement when it assigned the work of re-roofing the System Automotive Shop at West Oakland California to outside forces April 21,, 1978 through May 11, 1978 (System File MofW 152-838).

 (2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the National Agreement of May 17, 1968 when it did not afford the General Chairman a conference to discuss matters relating to the work referred to in Part (1) above.

 (3) Foremen E. E. Appleton and R. C. Howlin. Brick Mason F. G. Freijeo Composite Mechanics J. Hurley and W. L. Stone, Painter A. F. Vasconsellos and Carpenters J. R. Pokoraey, A. Fernandez and T. Lee each be allowed one hugdred (100) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates because of the aforesaid violations."

 OPINION CfE' HOARD: In Aprils 1978 Carrier contracted out the re-roofing of
 the System Automotive Shop at West Oakland, California.
 The work took about three weeks and required 910 man hours at a cost to Car
 rier of about $+9s000. The Organization alleges that this re-roofing work
 belonged to covered employes in furrier's Maintenance of Way Department and
 should have been given to them to perform.

 It alleges that Carrier violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 Agreement when it failed. to give the General Chairman an opportunity to discuss the work in question and that Carrier violated the Scope Rule and the Seniority Rule of the controlling agreement when it allowed work normally and historicall Consequently, the Organization claims 100 hours pay at straight time rates far nice specified employer.

 Carrier denies that it failed to conform with the notice sad conference requirement of Article IV of the May 17o 1968 Agreement or that the re-roofing of the automotive shop was work exclusively reserved to

 Maintenance of Way employes or that the subcontract it entered into for the re-roofing work was is any way a violation of the schedule agreement or of the may 17, 1968, Agreement.
                      Docket Number MW-23208


Li order to sustain its position is this case, the Organization must demonstrate that Carrier denied the General Msirman a conference as required by Article IV or that the work contracted out was reserved to bridge and building employer exclusively. The organization has failed to prevail as these points.

 The record clearly shows that the General Chairman requested and was offered the opportunity of having a conference. For whatever reason, he failed to follow up and Carrier contracted out the work resulting in the iattaat claim. This Division has decided other cases involving subcontracting of work on this railroad. We have generally applied the same principles in those cases that we applied in this case.

        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; end

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: -
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., 17.7.inois, this 29th day of May 19811 ~ ~ ~ .~ o i0,.C,. I

                                            c-.

                                          ~~Oi..,:e ,

                                                  . . ..