Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29224
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29057
 92-3-89-3-490
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin 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 Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned an outside contractor (Spray Foam) to perform roofing work on the Truck Garage at Joliet, Illinois on May 5 and 6, 1988 (System File BJ-12-88/UM-25-88).

 (2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Carpenter Foreman T. Legner and Carpenters J. Cheney, M. Clinton, B. Ruzich and J. Manstis shall each be allowed sixteen (16) hours of pay at their respective time and one-half
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 of this Claim are essentially undisputed. On February 4, 1988, Carrier issued written notice of its intent to contract out the application of roofing materials to the roof of the truck garage at its Joliet, Illinois location. Conference was requested by the Organization and the various contentions of the parties were discussed. Carrier proceeded to contract out the work. On May 5 and 6, 1988, the outside contractor performed the work using five workers each for a total of 16 hours. The Organization has named five Claimants to receive compensation for the time worked by outsiders.
 Form 1 Award No. 29224
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29057
 92-3-89-3-490
 The parties each raised a number of issues in support of their respec-
 tive positions. Distilled to its essence, the Organization claim is that the
 disputed roofing work is reserved to the bargaining unit both by specific
 provisions of the Agreement as well as by customary, historical and tradition
 al performance of the work systemwide. The Organization also contends that no
 circumstances, in the nature of magnitude or intricacy, existed to warrant the
 use of an outside contractor to do the work. It says the employees were quali
 fied and available to do the work and, therefore, should be compensated for
 the lost work opportunity occasioned by the Carrier's violation of the Agree
 ment.

 Carrier, for its position, says the Agreement does not reserve the work in question nor have the employees customarily, historically and traditionally performed the wo Carrier also contends that specific provisions of the Agreement recognize its right to contract out repair work, such as the disputed work. In addition, Carrier says Claimants were fully employed. It cites Rules of the Agreement which, it urges, bar Claimants from receiving compensation in the absence of actual pecuniary loss.

 The Organization objected to portions of the Carrier's Submission on the basis that it contained new information and argument that was not raised on the property. We have reviewed the portions in question and agree with the Organization's contention. Accordingly, none of the objectionable material has been considered in arriving at our decision.

 The Organization presented substantial evidence in support of its contention that the work in question was reserved to the employees by virtue of customary, historical and traditional performance systemwide. We do not address the issues of scope coverage and reservation of work, however, because the record establishes that the Claim must fail for another reason. Even if it is assumed that the work was otherwise reserved to the employees, the Carrier raised an affirmative defense based on an Agreement provision which it says grants it the right to contract out repair work.



the Memorandum of Understanding dated November 8, 1939, now found in the Agreement as Rule 5(a), says in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 29224
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29057
 92-3-89-3-490
 "GENERAL
 It is understood where reference is made in this
 understanding to fabrication of parts of iron, tin,
 sheet metal or other material or metals, that no
 such reference shall in any way prohibit the Railway
 Company from purchasing such parts from outside
 manufacturers, and that the right of the company to
 have repair work performed by outside contractors,
 agencies, etc. is not disturbed."

 Carrier raised the above provisions in defense of its actions and actually quoted the text of the 1939 Memorandum of Understanding in its correspondence exchanged on the property. The record establishes that the Organization did not refute this defense. Close scrutiny of the on-property correspondence reveals that the Organization did not address Carrier's claimed defense in any manner. Under the circumstances, we are compelled to accept the Carrier's defense as wholly unchallenged.

 Carrier also cited prior precedent to show that the 1939 provision has a broader scope than might otherwise be suggested from its context. In Third Division Award 11103 the Board found that tuckpointing, sandblasting and cleaning the exterior of Carrier's main office and annex was repair work within the purview of the p Board found that replacing a thermopane type window pane was covered repair work. In the absence of any opposition from the Organization, it follows that the roof work in question, as Carrier asserts, was repair work.

 Given the nature of the record before us, we have no basis to find that Carrier violated the applicable Agreement. The Organization had the burden to prove otherwise, but we must find that it failed to satisfy that burden.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ncy J. ~P- Executive Secretary


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