Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28301
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27674
 90-3-87-3-290
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Kansas City Terminal Railway Company

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

1. The Carrier violated Rules 1, 2, Appendix E, and other related rules of the Agreement when it required, permitted or allowed an outside firm to perform work reserved to the employees covered by the Agreement.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. J. M. Lyle for eight (8) hours at his overtime rate of pay each day, Monday through Friday, beginning with Monday, February 3, 1986 and continuing until the violation is stopped.

 3. The Carrier shall be required to pay the above amount in addition to all pay already received or that will be received by Mr. Lyle."

 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.

On January 31, 1986, Carrier engaged an outside contractor, Mize Houser and Co., to write a program for the System 36 Computer in its Traffic Control Center. The purpose was to provide entry through a CRT to an IBM System 36 located in the Traffic Control Center. The Contractor began work on
 January 31, 1986, and finished on May 23, 1986.It spent about 450 man hours.
 From 1 Award No. 28301
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27674
 90-3-87-3-290

 The Organization contends that Claimant who held the position of Programmer-Analyst, Assistant Machine Room Supervisor, should have been used to perform the programming work.

 Carrier contends that Claimant was fully occupied with his regular duties and that no qualified programmer existed among the ranks of other employees. It contended, given the press to improve the system and effect economies, that it had the right to go to an outside contractor to complete the needed program.

 This Board has reviewed the record and the material presented by each side. We cannot conclude from this review that the Organization has carried the burden of supporting its position that Carrier cannot contract out the programming operation in Appendix E to bar Carrier from obtaining an outside Company to do a programming project, or does it those duties will always be performed exclusively by the person holding that job.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      ~Mncy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of March 1990.