Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29431
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29477
 92-3-90-3-412
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition :Referee Hugh G. Duffy when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM.: "Claim ): the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) the Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned and/or otherwise allowed outside forces to construct an office addition to the mezzanine in the riesel Shen in North Platte, Nebraska on May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, L=, i5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1989 (System File S-183/890630).

 (2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to give the General Chairman prior advance written notice of its plans to contract out the work Involve
(3) .as a consequence of Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Nebraska Division Group 3 B&B Carpenter allowed one hundred sixty (150) hours of pay at their respective 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.

Between '!ay 1 and .'·ay 26, 1989, outside forces constructed an addition to the mezzanin The Organization alleges that this work has customarily and traditionally been assigned to and performed by employees of Group 3 of the Nebraska Division Bridge and Building Subdepartment and that Carrier, without giving advance notice as required by Rule 52, allowed the work to be performed by the outside contracting force of North Platte Lumber Company.
 Form 1 Award No. 29431
 Page 2 Docket 'No. MW-29477
 92-3-90-3-412

 The Carrier contends that it had no control over the disputed work, since the work area is leased by the General Electric Corporation, which contracted for and paid for the construction. It states further that due to the unavailability of manpower and the time element involved, the Carrier forces could not -ave performed this work had it been within their area of responsibility. :t also states that a review of the payroll records shows that both Claimants were fully employed when the work was performed.













Form 1 Award No. 29431
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29477
 92-3-90-3-412
 (c) Nothing contained in this rule requires that
 notices be given, conferences be held or agreements
 reached with the General Chairman regarding the use
 of contractors or use of other than maintenance of
 way employees in the performance of work in emer
 gencies such as wrecks, washouts, fires, earthquakes,
 Landsiides and similar disasters.
 (d) Nothing contained in this rule shall impair the
 Company's right to assign work not customarily per
 formed by enployes covered by this Agreement to
 outs:ae contractDrs

 ,while the Carrier ar;ues first that it would not in any event be required to furnish advance r3tice because the Organization has not demonstrated its excl4sive ri4ht consistently re,e--ted by the hoard in a long line of cases. In Third Division Award 28622, the Board ~tatea:











The record in this case demonstrates a mixed practice on this property with respect to the work subject to the Agreement in tie past but has also been contracted out by the Carrier in the past. Thus, while it could be contracted out under the provisions of Rule 52(b) and ( doing so.

 We turn then to the affirmative defense raised by the Carrier that it had no control over the dtsputed work. In determining whether the Carrier had control, we are _iided by TSird Division Award 28919, where the Board held that:
 Form 1 Award No. 29431
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29477
 92-3-90-3-412
 where Carrier retained significant control or
 the right of approval over the manner in which the
 track was to be constructed, operated or maintained,
 the Agreement was violated when no advance notice of
 the work was given and the work was within the Scope
 of the Agreement."

 The Carrier states that GE leases that portion of the building in question and it furnished a letter from the GE Service Manager stating that the facility in question is a GE-operated unit independent of the Carrier and that GE had contracted for and paid for the work.

 The record Aeveloped )n the property contains a letter from the General Chairman :D the Carrier dated May 7, 1990 which states:

Despite too more written requests by the Organization, the Carrier did not furnish ei_her a copy of the lease or the payment documentation.

 Since the Carrier did not produce any of this documentation during the handling of tie case on the property, we are unable to ascertain whether or not the Carrier retained significant control or the right of approval over how the new structure was to be constructed, operated or maintained. Since the Carrier has the burden of proving as an affirmative defense that it had no control over the disputed work (see Third Division Award 29017), we conclude that it has failed to carry its burden of proof and is in violation of the Agreement.

 The only remaining issue is whether monetary damages should be awarded. The record is undisputed that Claimants were fully employed and suffered no monetary loss as a result of the action claimed. Accordingly, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim are sustained, but Paragraph 3, which requests a monetary remedy, is denied.


Form 1 Award No. 29431
 Page 5 Docket No. MW-29477
 92-3-90-3-412
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:


Dated at Chicago, LL1:nois, :-.is 21st day of October 1992.