(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned an outside concern to perform track dismantling work in 'B' Yard within Proctor Yard at Proctor, Minnesota beginning on October 9, 1989 and continuing (Claim No. 35-89).

(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, B&B Truck Driver J. Lee and the senior furloughed or available four (4) trackmen, one (1) laborer, one (1) B machine operator, one (1) crane operator and one (1) foreman shall each be allowed pay at the appropriate rates in the amount of the total man-hours expended by the corresponding employe of the outside concern performing the above-described track dismantling work."

Agreement when it contracted out the dismantling of track in the "B" Yard at Proctor, Minnesota, to the Continental Rail Company. The bulk of the track materials removed were retained by the outside Contractor for resale; a smaller portion was retained by carrier. It is undisputed that Carrier assigned its Track Subdepartment forces to remove the materia

The Organization points out that Carrier failed to give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intent to contract out the work and maintains that Claimants were fully qualified, available, and willing to do the job. It contends that the work of the character involved is encompassed within the scope of the Agreement and it has been assigned to Carrier forces customarily and historically. The December 11, 1981, Letter of Agreement signed by O.M. Berge and Charles I. Hopkins representing the organization and the railroads respectively placed a special burden on carrier to increase the use of maintenance of way forces.

The Organization does not believe that Carrier sold the scrap cross ties and track material to the Contractor. Rather, it "deep discounted" the material in return for the removal work. The Organization notes that Carrier failed to furnish its fully executed contracts with the Contractor. It provided only its purchase authority documents. Carrier failed to meet its burden of making the purchase documents a part of the record.

This Board has reviewed the entire record of this case and concludes that the facts are similar in certain important respects to those in Third Division Award 29394, governing the same parties, which was rendered on September 17, 1992. In the instant dispute, the yard in question had been eliminated and the track was sold because it was no longer needed for railroad operations. In Award No. 29394, the trackage in question was no longer needed because the property was sold.

Relying on prior Third Division Award 12918, the Board, in Award 29394, determined that "for the most part, we find no violation by the Carrier here." In Award 12918, it had been concluded that:

"...the work of dismantling and removing completely the abandoned property does not fall within the contemplation of the parties. The work cannot be considered maintenance, repair or construction."

This reasoning applies here as well.

Agreement when it contracted out the dismantling of track in the "B" Yard at Proctor, Minnesota, to the Continental Rail Company. The bulk of the track materials removed were retained by the outside Contractor for resale; a smaller portion was retained by Carrier. It is undisputed that Carrier assigned its Track Subdepartment forces to remove the materia

The Organization points out that Carrier failed to give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intent to contract out the work and maintains that Claimants were fully qualified, available, and willing to do the job. It contends that the work of the character involved is encompassed within the scope of the Agreement and it has been assigned to Carrier forces customarily and historically. The December 11, 1981, Letter of Agreement signed by O.M. Berge and Charles I. Hopkins representing the Organization and the railroads respectively placed a special burden on carrier to increase the use of maintenance of way forces.

The organization does not believe that carrier sold the scrap cross ties and track material to the Contractor. Rather, it "deep discounted" the material in return for the removal work. The Organization notes that carrier failed to furnish its fully executed contracts with the Contractor. It provided only its purchase authority documents. Carrier failed to meet its burden of making the purchase documents a part of the record.

This Board has reviewed the entire record of this case and concludes that the facts are similar in certain important respects to those in Third Division Award 29394, governing the same parties, which was rendered on September 17, 1992. In the instant dispute, the yard in question had been eliminated and the track was sold because it was no longer needed for railroad operations. In Award No. 29394, the trackage in question was no longer needed because the property was sold.

Relying on a prior Third Division Award 12918, the Board in Referee Meyers' Award 29394 determined that "for the most part, we find no violation by the Carrier here." In Award 12918, it had been concluded that

"...the work of dismantling and removing completely the abandoned property does not fall within the contemplation of the parties. The work cannot be considered maintenance, repair or construction."

This reasoning applies here as well.

In Award 29394, the Carrier Members of the Board concurred with the basic decision, but dissented to that portion that concluded that Carrier erred in using the Contractor's forces to dismantle and transport Carrier property back to Carrier. In the present case, maintenance of way forces were used for this work and thus this issue does not arise.

Finally, while noting the Organization's argument concerning Carrier's failure to furnish its fully executed contracts with the Contractor to the organization, we can find no indication that the organization disputed the material that it did receive on the property. Thus, this matter is not properly before us.

A W A R D