Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28555
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27180
 90-3-86-3-249
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister 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 (Sletten Construction Company) to construct Bridges 109.8 and 109.9 at Bonners Ferry, Idaho beginning March 11, 1985 (System File S-I-119C/013210-SI-1).

 (2) The Carrier also violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces to perform earth and rock moving work in connection with building a new roadway at Bridge 109.9 beginning April 9, 1985 (System File S-I-12OC/013210-SI-1).

 (3) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Foreman G. H. Barfuss, Machine Operator J. D. Yeoumans, Sr., Welder P. W. Curless, First Class Steel Mechanics A. E. Poelstra and W. E. Kendall shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for:

and Foreman N. R. Brown, Machine Operator H. E. Hedgecock, Welder K. T. Gors, First Class Steel Mechanics D. R. Greisen and M. R. Brown shall each be allowed pay at their respect


(4) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (2) above, furloughed Sectionmen T. S. Couch, G. Chopin and G. Werner shall each be allowed pay at their respec

Form 1 Award No. 28555
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27180
 90-3-86-3-249
 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.

 On January ?5, 1985, the Carrier, by written no"-°, advised the Organization of its intent t 109.8 and 109.9 at Bonners Ferry, Idaho. The new bridge would replace a wooden structure. The Carrie


On February 1, 1985, the Organization advised the Carrier the Organization was not agreeable to the parties met in conference on February 8, 1985, as well as March 28, 1985. On May 2, 1985, the Organization filed two Claims contending the work contracted out was covered by Groups and Classes), 53 (Classification of Work), and 54 (Classification of Employees), the Organization argues the work of constructing bridges and constructing roadbed approa scope of the Agreement. For its part, the Carrier argues it did not have the equipment, supervisory skills, or the manpower to construct the bridge at Bonnets Ferry given the fact the bridge was 803 feet long. The Carrier also asserted it was not required to piecemeal portions of the overall project.

 In this matter, the Organization adopts the position the parties' Scope Rule prohibits the Carrier from contracting out any work. In so arguing, the Organization also Out, of the 1968 National Agreement are not controlling because the "more restrictive provisions" of Organization additionally attempts to suppress any reference to the 1968 National Agreement because in compliance with Article IV of the National Agreement.

 These arguments overlook significant facts contained in this record. First, the parties' Agreement contains no language requiring the Carrier to give notice to the Organization when work that is actually or arguably considered within the scope o Form 1 Award No. 28555

 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27180
 90-3-86-3-249

 Secondly, the Carrier asserted as early as November 27, 1985, that its employees had never previ the Carrier specified the bridge was 803 feet long; that two large barge cranes were necessary for the construction of nine piers in the river; and that this included cofferdams in water ten to twenty feet deep with spans weighing between 120,000 pounds and 185,000 pounds. In addition, the Carrier consistently stated it did not possess the supervisory skills to direct the construction of the bridge. Aside from mere assertions claiming the employees did possess the necessary skills, the Organization presented no evidence to support that Claim. The record further discloses the Carrier recalled three furloughed carpenters, as well as a furloughed sectionman.

 The Organization refers to a letter agreement entered into on December 11, 1981, between the Organization and the National Railway Labor Conference Committee. This Agreement refers specifically to the contracting out provisions of the 1968 National Agreement and jointly reaffirmed the "intent of Article IV of the May 17, 1968, Agreement that advance notice requirements be strictly adhered to ...." Herein, this is precisely what the Carrier did on January 25, 1985, obviously in compliance with Article IV of the 1968 National Agreement. In the absence of any language in the parties' local agreement requiring such notice, the Organization's contention that the Carrier's failure to specifically cite Article IV nullifies its efficacy is an exercise in sophistry.

 In summation, the Carrier provided the Organization with the requisite notice required by Articl contention that Organization employees had never previously performed work as contemplated in the Bonners Ferry project was not refuted nor was the Carrier's contention that its skills to perform the work. This view is supported by the sheer magnitude and complexity of the project. Finally, this Board finds no factual support for the Organization's claim it could perform all the work involved or that some of the work might have been reserved from the project and assigned to the Claimants. See Third Division Awards 26504, 24281, 23102, and 20899. Accordingly, we will deny this Claim.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. r -,Executive Secretary


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