Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29306
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28207
 92-3-87-3-785
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein 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 outside forces were used to perform weed spraying work on the Nebraska and Wyoming Divisions on June 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, July 1 and 2, 1986 (System File M-423/860138).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Roadway Equipment Operator R. L. Wagner shall be allowed two hundred twenty (220) hours of pay at the Class A Roadway Equipment Operator'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.

On March 10, 1986, Carrier advised the General Chairman of its intent to solicit bids and contract out weed spraying for 1986. Carrier contends that the advance notice was properly supplied pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Agreement, which reads in pertinent part:


Form 1 award No. 29306
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28207
 92-3-87-3-785
 employes, special equipment not owned by the Company,
 or special material available only when applied or
 installed through supplier, are required; or when
 work is such that the Company is not adequately
 equipped to handle the work, or when emergency time
 requirements exist which present undertakings not
 contemplated by the Agreement and beyond the capacity
 of the Company's forces. In the event the Company
 plans to contract out work because of one of the
 criteria described herein, it shall notify the
 General Chairman of the Organization in writing as
 far in advance of the date of the contracting
 transaction as is practicable and in any event not
 less than fifteen (15) days prior thereto, except in
 emergency time requirements' cases. If the General
 Chairman, or his representative, requests a meeting
 to discuss matters relating to the said contracting
 transaction, the designated representative of the
 Company shall promptly meet with him for that
 purpose. Said Company and Organization representa
 tive shall make a good faith attempt to reach an
 understanding concerning said contracting but if no
 understanding is reached the Company may nevertheless
 proceed with said contracting, and the Organization
 may file and progress claims in connection there
 with."
 (emphasis added)

 The Organization responded on March 13, 1986, that the Carrier had employees "who could perform some of this work," and requested a conference. It again requested a conference on March 20, 1986. On March 24, 1986, Carrier suggested the dates of `larch 31 or April 1 for a conference. There is no evidence in the record tha
No conference was held. The work was performed in late June and early July, 1986, and the instant claim was filed on August 19, 1986.

 The Organization alleges that the weed spraying work belonged to employees it represents and should have been given to them to perform. It further alleges that Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to give the General Chairman an opportunity to discuss the work in question. Consequently, the organization clai time rate.

 Carrier denies that it failed to conform with the notice and conference requirements set forth i spraying work was exclusively reserved to employees represented by the Organization by custom or Agr contracted out.
 Form 1 Award No. 29306
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28207
 92-3-87-3-785

 Addressing tae notice issue first, careful review of the precedent Awards cited by the parties reveals one that is precisely on point. In Third Division Award 24888, Carrier notified the General Chairman of its intent to contract out certain painting work. The Organization objected and indicated that it would like to further discuss the issue. Carrier subsequently responded that it was "agreeable to discuss the matter with you any mutually convenient time." As in the instant case, there was no evidence that the Organization pursued the matter further, and that a claim was filed after the work was contracted out. In denying the claim, the Board concluded:

We find the foregoing reasoning applicable and persuasive. In this case, the Carrier served timely notice or its intent to contract out, and responded to the Organization's requests for a conference by offering several possible dates. As _z Award 24888, supra, we find Carrier did not violate the Agreement because it afforded a bona fide opportunity for a conference.

 Turning to the merits, we note there was considerable evidence presented by the Organization on the effect that, at :east prior to 1984, certain weed spraying work had been performed by employees as a matter of practice. Correspondence between the parties dating back to March 1983, indicates that Carrier operated spray trains and that, in the past, the positions of Weed Spray Operator and Weed Spray Operator Helper have been bulletined. Moreover, it is pointed out that Appendix K of the Agreement specifically identifies Position Code No. 506 as that of a "Chemical Weed Spray Operator."

 The Carrier defended by asserting that it no longer possesses the necessary equipment to perform the work, that its rail spray cars have fallen into disuse and have been condemned. It argued that it has for several years utilized the services of outside contractors because:
 Form 1 Award No. 29306
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-28207
 92-3-87-3-785
 "Federal and State laws regulating the use of
 herbicides have become much more restrictive the last
 few years. These laws now require that personnel
 applying herbicides are certified and licensed. The
 contractors specify the chemicals to be used and how
 spraying is to be done. Therefore, their employees
 must be knowledgeable in the use of herbicides and
 agricultural sciences.
 The spray trains and hi-rail spray trucks used by
 Railroad contractors meet any reasonable definition
 for specialized equipment. This equipment is espe
 cially built for the use of the contractors and is
 not for sale or rent.
 State and municipal agencies, in many instances,
 are now requiring the Railroad to control vegetation
 on our entire right-of-way. Our present program in
 cludes spraying the ballast section, under bridges,
 at road crossings, brush, wide spraying of selective
 herbicides and plant growth regulators. The spray
 cars the Railroad used to operate were designed to
 treat only the ballast section and would be totally
 inadequate for our present program."

 Rule 52 provides that the Carrier may contract out work when certain specific circumstances are present. For example, where special equipment is not owned by the Carrier or where the work in question is such that Carrier is not adequately equipped to handle it, Carrier is permitted to assign the work to outside forces. In the instant case, we find sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that e 52 were present at the time of the instant dispute. (See, Third Division Award 26711). Accordingly, the Claim must be denied.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


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