Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29217
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28270
 92-3-88-3-42
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon 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 operate a bacihoe in connection with installing a culvert at Colby on November 10, 1986 (System File 69-86).

 (2) The Carrier also violated Supplement No. 3 of the Agreement when it did not give the General Chairman advance notice of its intention to contract said work.

 (3) As a consequence of Parts (1) and/or (2) above, B&B Mechanic D. Zimmerman shall be allowed ten (10) hours of pay at the B&B Mechanic's straight time rate."

 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 underlying facts are not in dispute. Carrier assigned its fourman B&B crew to replace a backhoe to assist in the job. The rental vendor chosen by Carrier, however, would lease the backhoe only if it would be run by the vendor's operator. The backhoe was on the job one day for a total of ten hours. Claimant and the Organization seek compensation for the time worked by the vendor's operator.
 Form 1 Award No. 29217
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28270
 92-3-88-3-42

 While a number of arguments and assertions were made in the parties' respective Submissions, we are confining our analysis of the record, as we must, to the evidence and argument that was presented on the property.

 Distilled to its essence, the Organization position is that the disputed work is reserved by rule and practice to the bargaining unit. As such, Supplement No. 3 to the Agreement required that Carrier serve advance written notice of its intention to contract out bargaining unit work. The Organization says Carrier failed to do so. In addition, the Organization asserts that Supplement No. 3 also required Carrier to make every reasonable effort to perform the disputed work with its own forces. The Organization challenges the Carrier's contentions that it chose the only reasonable alternative available to it. Duluth area supplier, whose equipment had been leased in the past and who permitted its equipment to be operated by Carrier's forces.

 Carrier, to the contrary, asserts that it did not own a suitable backhoe and that its only reasonable option was to rent the equipment from a vendor who insisted on -iroviding its own operator. Carrier says, since Colby, Minnesota was some 80-9) miles from the Duluth area, it had no choice, from a cost and travel standpoint, but to rent from the Ely, Minnesota vendor. Carrier says it made every r asserts that the disputed work is not reserved to the bargaining unit by any Agreement provisions ci:ed by the Organization. Finally, Carrier asserted that its four person crew was larger than necessary, was paid at the "Composite Mechanic" rate for e would not have been increased had the backhoe been operated by Carrier forces. Carrier denies that its actions violated Supplement No. 3.
Aside from the underlying facts of the event itself, there is scant factual evidence, from either party, in the record. The record is comprised, almost exclusively, of assertions and counter-assertions without supporting evidence. Many of the key assertions are unrefuted.

 While Carrier did assert that no cited Rule reserved the disputed work to the Organization, it did not challenge the Organization's contention that the B&B forces had customarily, historically and traditionally performed the work system-wide. Moreover, at no time, on the property, did Carrier contend that Supplement 4o. 3 did not apply to the events in question. We find, therefore, on this record, that the disputed work was within the scope of the Agreement.





Form 1 Award No. 29217
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28270
 92-3-88-3-42
 (b) Consistent with the skills available in the
 Bridge and Building Department and the equipment
 owned by the Company, the Railway Company will make
 every reasonable effort to hold to a minimum the
 amount of new construction work contracted.
 (c) Except in emergency cases where the need for
 prompt action precludes following such procedure,
 whenever work is to be contracted, the Carrier shall
 so notify the General Chairman in writing, describe
 the work to be contracted, state the reason or rea
 sons therefor, and afford the General Chairman the
 opportunity of discussing the matter in conference

Carrier did not challenge, on the property, the Organization's contention that Carrier had faile notice. We must find, therefore, that Carrier violated this provision of the Agreement.

 Carrier did assert that the Ely, Minnesota vendor was its only reasonable rental option. The Organization, to the contrary, asserted that Carrier had reasonable rental alternatives in the Duluth area. In view of the Organization's challenge, Carrier had the burden to support its defensive assertion with probative evidence. The record does not contain any such supporting evidence.

 On the one hand, it would appear that Carrier's reasonableness defense should fail for lack of proof and a violation on the merits should be found. On the other hand, however, the Organization did not respond to Carrier's assertion that the supplied operator. The presence of the vendor's operator, we are forced to conclude, did not deprive any B&B employee of a work opportunity he might otherwise have had.

 Third Division Award 26832 involving these same parties, suggests that, at the time of this dispute, the Organization had not been enforcing the Supplement No. 3 notice provision for some time. The Board there concluded that Carrier should be directed to comply with the notice requirement prospectively but that no mone
We find the same result to be in order here. While we must sustain the Claim as to the notice and reasonableness violations, there is no proven lost work opportunity. Accordingly, we must deny the requested relief.
 Form 1 Award No. 29217
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-28270
 92-3-88-3-42




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.