Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29286
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28016
92-3-87-3-573
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edwin H. Benn 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 install a new roof on the Car Shop in Proctor, Minnesota (System Claim 33-86).


















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.


Form 1 Award No. 29286
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28016
92-3-87-3-573

At conference on March 7, 1986, the Carrier notified the Organization that it intended to contract out the construction of a new roof on the Proctor Car Shop. By letter of March 12, 1986, the Carrier formally notified the Organization of its intentions:






Form 1 Award No. 29286
Page 3 Docket No. MW-28016
92-3-87-3-573




































Form 1 Award No. 29286

Page 4 Docket No. MW-28016
92-3-87-3-573

Stripping the parties' arguments to their essence, the Organization argues that the employees have performed similar work in the past and were capable of performing the work on the Proctor Shop roof while the Carrier disputes the similarity of prior work and argues that the required skills and equipment were not available. We have carefully examined the record and considering the installation of the particular roof truss needed in this project (66 feet long), the need for large jib cranes not owned by the Carrier and the kind of roofing material used on the project coupled with the steep slopes and heights on this particular project we conclude that the kind of project involved in this matter was sufficiently different from other projects previously performed by the employees. We find that in this particular case the project fell within the language of Supplement No. 3 permitting the contracting of such work. See Third Division Award 28758.



        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ~' J~Z :~_
        ncy J. D a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 1992.