Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26783
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26243
 88-3-84-3-663
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces (Sproul Construction Company) to perform paving work at the Main Street Crossing in Moosic, Pennsylvania on August 12 and 15, 1983 (System File 8.84).

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

 3. Trackmen P. McHale, P. Smith and K. Doyle shall each be allowed six and one-half (6 1/2) hours of pay at the trackman's rate, System Equipment Operator A. Nepa shall be allowed six and one-half (6 1/2) hours of pay at the system equipment operator's rate and J. Mesiti shall be allowed two and onehalf (2 1/2) hours of pay
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The claim before the Board arose after the Carrier had contracted with an outside firm to pave one of its grade crossings at Moosic, Pennsylvania.

 The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record developed on the property and concludes from this r claimed by the Organization. In reaching our finding, the Board notes that at no time during the handling of the case on the property did the Carrier come ,forth with substantive rebuttals to the allegations that:
 Form 1 Award No. 26783
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26243
 88-3-84-3-663
 The claimed work belonged to the Maintenance of Way
 Craft
 - or -
 It did not notify the General Chairman of its
 intent to contract out the work at issue, as
 required by Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National
 Agreement.

 Accordingly, the only issue which remains before the Board is the question of damages. This Division has mainly held that where Claimants are fully employed and where no loss of earnings has been demonstrated, monetary damages are not awarded. We do not deviate from that principle here. However, as found in Third Divi organization's argument "that flagrant and continued disregard of a Carrier's responsibility to provide proper notification should result in the sustaining of a monetary Claim." Like the Board in that case, we find that this is an argument that warrants attention and we will continue to consider it in the future.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest.
      Nancy K/Ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 1988.