Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29089
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28884
92-3-89-3-288
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Missouri ( Pacific Railroad Company)



(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces to replace all of the locks in the depot at Jefferson City, Missouri on December 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1987 (Carrier's File 880016 MPR).

(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it did not give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intention the contract said work.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, 86B Carpenters J. C. Boyer, C. R. Caton, J. W. Penrod, S. Parastar and D. L. Fall shall each be allowed pay for:




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.
Form 1 Award No. 29089
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28884
92-3-89-3-288
In this dispute, the Organization contends as follows:
"On December 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1987, the
Carrier assigned and/or otherwise permitted an
outside concern (Tyler Lock Company, Jefferson
City, Missouri), to replace all the locks in the
depot at Jefferson City, Missouri. Such work
consisted of the removal of all the old locks in
the depot at Jefferson City, Missouri and rein
stalling new locks in their place."
The Organization contends that this is work "traditionally, cus-
tomarily and historically" performed by Bridge and Building Subdepartment
employees and that the Carrier failed to notify the General Chairman of its
plans to contract out work.

As indicated in the Claim handling procedure, the Organization supported its position solely by refe changing of two locks had been witnessed. There is simply no factual support for the Claim to the extent presented. In the absence of further evidence, the Board has no basis to rule on the validity of the Claim.








Attest:
        ncy J. p - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of January 1992.