Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28343
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27542
 90-3-86-3-803
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher 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 perform track repair work at Beloit, Wisconsin from September 10 through November 27, 1985, both dates inclusive (System Files C #33-85/80046-B-221 and C II37-85/800
(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it did not of its intention to contract said work.

 (3) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, Track Department employes L. M. Alf, R. A. Boeck, W. L. Byrd, R. B. Lightheart, L. A. Porter, W. L. Reppin and F. E. Truesdill shall each be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at their respective rates for each work day within the claim period 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.

The Organization filed a Claim contending that its Agreement was violated when Carrier used the services of Wisconsin Railroad Service Corporation to renew certain t Wisconsin.
 Form 1 Award No. 28343
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27542
 90-3-86-3-803

 From the outset Carrier did not dispute that it did not give an Article IV notice on contracting, that the work was performed by the Contractor or the amount of tim Industries and it had no control over the renewal project. It contended that the entire transaction was between Colt Industries and Wisconsin Railroad Service Corporation and that the Soo Line expended no funds whatsoever in the renewal. In support of this contention Carrier furnished the Organization with a statement from an individual (no title shown) assigned to its Real Estate Department which it alleges confirmed the existence of the lease arrangement.

 We have examined Carrier's proof that the trackage was leased to Colt Industries at the time of the renewal project and do not find it persuasive. If in fact a lease existed which actually transferred the tracks to Colt Industries it would be quite simple to provide copies. Instead what is offered is a two paragraph me existed. This statement, standing alone, is nothing more than unsupported assertion. It is not proof. Moreover, one week after the Contractor completed the renewal, Maintenan trackage involved.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:

        ancy xZ.~O~_

            J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1990.