Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28513
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26785
 90-3-85-3-541
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn 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 to cut brush at Mile Post and 22, 1984 (Carrier's File 013.31-305).

 (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) Section Foreman R. A. Norwood and Trackmen C. W. Archield, E. L. Black and C. B. Garrett shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by outside forces in performing the work described 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 At the time this dispute arose, Claimants were assigned to Section Gang 204 headquartered at Karnack, Texas, which gang maintained trackage including Mile Posts T-4 an in the claim the parties agree that the Carrier contracted brush cutting for that section of trackage to A. K. Gillis and Sons without first giving written notice to the General Chairman of its intent to contract out the work.

 Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement provides, in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 28513
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26785
 90-3-85-3-541
 "In the event a carrier plans to contract out work within
 the scope of the applicable schedule agreement, the carr
 ier shall notify the General Chairman of the organization
 involved in writing as far in advance of the date of the
 contracting transaction as is practicable and in any event
 not less than 15 days prior thereto."

 In Third Division Award 23560, decided on this property, a dispute arose over the failure of the Carrier to give prior notice to the Organization concerning the Carrier's intended use of a subcontractor to perform certain bridge spraying functions. The Board held:






Form 1 Award No. 28513
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26785
 90-3-85-3-541
 aspects of the situation with Carrier. Proper
 notification under Article IV is a prerequisite to
 subcontracting of covered work. Carrier failed to
 meet that requirement in this instance and conse
 quently has violated Article IV of the May 17,
 1968, National Agreement."

 Notwithstanding the clear holding in Award 23560 between these parties (which issued two years before this dispute arose) that "Carrier's position that it must notify the General Chairman of subcontracting only when the work in question is exclusively reserved to the Organization by contract is not appropriate" and "unacceptable," the Carrier argues in its submission:

Although perhaps not exclusively so, under the terms of the 1968 National Agreement, brush cutting work falls "within the scope of the applicable schedule agreement. 1984 ("The railway company does utilize its own forces in the operation of the on-track brush cutters ...."). Thus, and again, the Carrier has failed to notify the General Chairman as required by Article IV of the 1968 National Agreement and has failed to do so in this case after "this Board has expressed its displeasure at the failure of Carrier to notify the General Chairman when such subcontracts are entered into." Award 23560, supra. To compound matters, in this case the Carri after this Board held in Award 23560 that such an argument "is not appropriate" and is "unacceptable
Contrary to the Carrier's assertion, the requirement to give notice to the Organization of the intent to subcontract under Article IV of the 1968 National Agreement does not place the Carrier in a "Catch 22" situation. See Third Division Award 25370 ("The giving of such notice is simply a procedural requirement .... It does not establish affirmatively or negatively, that the disputed work is exclusively covered under the Scope Rule."). By once again failing to give prior written notice of its intent to subcontract work that is "within the scope of the applicable schedule agreement," the Carrier continues to violate its contractual obligation to give the required notice. In light of Award 23560, in this case we are faced with yet another identical violation by the Carrier and are further faced with the same arguments that this Board has clearly rejected in prior matters between the parties. We must therefore again find a violation of the Carrier's obligation under Article IV of the 1968 National Agreement to notify the Organization of its intent to subcontract work within the scop Form 1 Award No. 28513
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-26785
 90-3-85-3-541

 With respect to the remedy, we are satisfied that although some Claimants may have been working, on vacation, observing rest days or away from the gang on the dates in issue, this case nevertheless requires the imposition of affirmative relief. We recognize that in situations where a failure to notify of an intent to subcontract has been demonstrated but where the affected employees were fully See e.g., Third Division Awards 26673, 26481, 26422 and the remedy portion of Award 23560. However, those Awards do not address the situation presented in this case where the Carrier failed to the degree demonstrated by this record - to follow the previous admonitions of this Board over the requirement to give notice. The Carrier's continued failure to abide by the terms of the 1968 National Agreement and its advancement of arguments that this Board has previously and repeatedly re failure to give notification to the General Chairman in this case as required by the 1968 National Agreement, the Carrier again frustrated the purpose of Article IV. Although Article IV of that Agreement does not require assignment of the work to Claimants and does permit the Carrier to subcontract that work, notification and discussions (if requested by the Organization) further contemplated by that Agreeme the subcontracting of the work to an outside concern. By the failure to give the required notice, the Carrier did not give the negotiated procedure set forth in Article IV an opportunity to unfold. Claimants therefore clearly lost a potential work opportunity as a result of the Carrier's failure to follow its contractual mandate to give the Organization timely notice. Given this Board's previous admonitions to the Carrier to comply with the terms of the 1968 National Agreement and the Carrier's failure to do so and further considering that the awarding of monetary relief to employees for violations of contracting out obligations even when the affected employees were employed is not unprecedented (see Third Division Award 24621 and Awards cited therein), on balance, we belie affirmative relief is required in order to remedy the violation of the Agreement. To do otherwise wo Agreement meaningless.

 The Awards cited to us by the Carrier do not change the result. Third Division Awards 26711, 26565, 26434, 26225, 25370, 25088, 24853, 23423, 23303, 19903 and 16459 involved disputes over the merits of the right to subcontract and not, as her facts presented by this case, Third Division Awards 26676, 26084, 25276, 24508, PL8 3445, Award 10 and Fourth Division Award 4350 are factually distinguishable.

 However, the Organization's assertion that the contractor worked on June 13 and 14, 1984, is disputed by the Carrier. Because the Organization has not sufficiently demonstrated that work was performed by the contractor on June 13 and 14, 1984, those dates shall not be included in the compensation awarded in this matter.
 Form 1 Award No. 28513
 Page 5 Docket No. MW-26785
 90-3-85-3-541




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest
        Nancy J'. ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of August 1990.