Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27731
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27031
 89-3-86-3-71
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes 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 to construct fence at Belen, New Mexico October 5 through October 31, 1984 (System File 160-A8-8431/11-1940-20-219).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, furloughed B&B Mechanics L. P. Grant, C. T. Gonzales, W. D. Kennedy, J. E. Frerichs, J. L. McKinney and B&B Helpers T. J. Miner, D. J. Shetter, F. S. Apodaca, S. V. Salazar and R. L. Bejar shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the three hundred (300) man-hours expended by outside forces in performing the work referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 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 employes 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.

From October 5, 1984, to October 31, 1984, three employees of Valley Fence Company constructed 1,350 feet of chain link fence on Carrier property at Belen, New Mexico. The Organization claimed that the work in question was work customarily and traditionally performed by Carrier maintenance of way forces.

 Carrier, on the other, has asserted that many fencing jobs on Carrier's property have been perfo work is not work reserved exclusively to Carrier maintenance of way forces.
 Form 1 Award No. 27731
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27031
 89-3-86-3-71

 This Board is again confronted with a case involving subcontracting of work that Carrier's maintenance of way forces could most likely perform and have performed many times. In spite of this fact, however, Carrier is not barred from subcontracting the fencing work in question. While maintenance of way forces have certainly built many fences on Carrier property, the general Scope Rule contained in the agreement does not specifically name fence building as work reserved to of projects where fences were built by outside contractors.

 The Board takes note that Carrier did properly inform the General Chairman of the intent to contract out the fence work.

 While this Board has been supportive of the notion that Carrier should attempt to use its own forces rather than contract out work, it cannot find a basis in the instant claim for a sustaining award.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.