(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Kay Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( .
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway company
 ( (Southern Region)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Commiittee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without a conference having been held as required by the October 24, 1957 Letter of Agreement, it assigned outside forces to clean yard tracks on the Ricbmand Division begin. ning March 10, 1980 (system File C-TC-923/tdG-2805).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Machine Operator George 0. Thompson be allowed eight (8) hours of pay per day for March 10 and 11, 1980; ten (10) hours of pay per day for March 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1980 and ten (10) hours of pay for each day thereafter on which the work referred to in Part (1) hereof is performed by outside farces."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The pertinent Agreement reserves certain work to the Bn
 ployes and the October 24, 1957 Letter of Agreement be
 tween the parties specifies that the Carrier will perform all maintenance of
 work with classified employes except where special equipment is needed. But
 it was agreed that the (hazier would discuss any asserted necessity to deviate
 from that practice prior to contracting work out.

 The Employes assert that no such conference was held even though work which could have been performed by the Employes was contracted to another firm.

 We have reviewed at length the Carrier's contention that a different case has been submitted to this Board than the one which was handled on the property, however we are unable to agree with that contention. We feel that the Employes set forth a basic claim and followed it consistently through the procedures. We find that no conference was held and that there was a violation of the Carrier's obligation and accordingly we will sustain the claim.





That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act.* as approved June 21L9 1934:

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



        Claim sustained.


                      NATIONAL RAa.ROAD ADJDSTKENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary.
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By
 Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 26th day of May 198'3·

    e,ECEI VE


'JUL 271983
 C,~t

 c°~o office-g~ .
                                            Serial No. 327


                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                        THIRD DIVISION


              INTERPRETATION N0. 1 TO AWARD NO. 24399


                      DOCKET N0. MW-24303


NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 NAME OF CARRIER: Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Southern Region)

 Award 24399 considered a claim for eight (8) hours of pay for certain specified days; ten (10) hours per day for the specified days and ten (10) hours of pay for "... each day thereafter on which the work referred to ... is performed by outside forces."

 The Division found that "... no conference was held and that there was a violation of the Carrier's obligation and accordingly we will sustain the claim."

 Despite that finding and despite the fact that outside forces were on the property until July 23, 1980, Carrier paid Claimant only $433.00 which represented "... any time he lost as a result of the Carrier contracting for the Yard Cleaner."

        The Organization has sought an Interpretation as follows:


        "Does the language 'we will sustain the claim' in Award 24399 contemplate that the claimant shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay per day for March 10 and 11, 1980; ten (10) hours of pay per day for March 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1980 and ten (10) hours of pay for each day thereafter on which the work in question was performed even though the claimant might have performed compensable service for the Carrier during part of the claim period?"


We do not speculate upon our ruling had the above issue been presented to us when we initially heard the case. It was not, and it is not appropriate to attack the form of the claim after the claim has been sustained. Since it is now too late for Carrier to attack the claim we will answer the issue in the affirmative.

 Referee Joseph A. Sickles who sat with the Board when the Award was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this Interpretation.

                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1985.