Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29440
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29034
 92-3-89-3-456
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 additio- Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAi,,1t: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
permitted outsi~ Forces (Maroszak Construction Company) to perform concrete
 work in connec:_~: with i-tst3L11ng a new grade crossing at Glendale Yard on
 the North Milwau<ea Line on '4L ay 12, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 23, 1988 (System File C
 416-88/800-46-B-=_1 C11P).

 (2) The :arrier also violated Article IV of the National agreement of May 17, 1968 wne-. it did not give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intentio.^. =o contract said work.

 (3) As ~ consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, B53 employes J Wild, G. A. Prel_, C. R. Bath, K. K. Popp, L. J. Budahn, R. C. Brown and R. W. Hansen, Jr. shah each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate snare of the total number of man-hours expended by outside forces performinz the work identified in Part (1) above."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evicence, 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 Di;ision of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved ierein.

 Parties =,-) said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 This C:a:m concerns oerformance of concrete work on the Carrier's property in connection with a new track crossing. The work was in connection with a road requested and financed by and for the exclusive use of a Carrier patron. Carrier =orces did perform some of the work in construction of the
 Form 1 Award No. 29440
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29034
 92-3-89-3-456

 crossing, but this was at the expense of the outside company. The Carrier did not engage any contractors for the work, as this was handled directly by the A. 0. Smith Company. The Carrier received no benefit from the resulting track crossing, other than obliging one of its patrons for whose exclusive use it was constructed.

 The Organization has failed to demonstrate that the Carrier undertook any contracting work or that the work in question was for its use or benefit. As a result, there is no showing of Rule violation. Discussion as to concrete work which may be performed Sy Carrier forces or whether or not there is Rule support to reserve such work to Maintenance of Way employees is not in point here. Where the carrier has ,o control of the work and where it is of no benefit to the Carrier (and have repeatedly determined t'nat Carrier forces are not improperly denied the opportunity t) perform such work.

 Dlrectl~ in point ',-are is Third Division Award 28941 under closely similar circumscances.




                            By Order of Third Division


attest:

          cy i. 0~v Z.

                  - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, CLlinots, this 21st day of October 1992.