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 employe 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

On March 22, 1990, the Carrier's Chief Engineer issued a letter to the Organization advising it of its intent to contract out concrete repairs to various bridge piers and abutments. The letter explained the carrier was in the process of increasing its bridge maintenance forces by seven employees to perform steel repair work, but that it was not economically feasible to hire and train an additional concrete crew and purchase the necessary equipment. According to this letter, there were no furloughed bridge maintenance employees at the time.

The parties met in conference on March 29, 1990, to discuss this matter. At that time, the Carrier advised the organization as to the general locations where the work would be performed. By letter dated May 9, 1990, the Carrier provided more specific information as to the work sites. Although the Organization did not concur, the Carrier proceeded to contract out the work. The contractor commenced work on June 5, 1990, and concluded on September 25, 1990.

Initially, the organization asserts the Carrier failed to deny its August 20, 1990, claim in a timely manner. The Organization avers the Carrier's letter of denial arrived in an envelope postmarked October 30, 1990. The Carrier the day it was written, October 19, 1990. The Carrier notes the envelope submitted by the Organization contained only 45 cents postage, but the letter indicates it was sent certified mail, return receipt, which would require $2.29 in postage. We conclude there is insufficient evidence before the Board to find the Carrier's denial was not sent within the applicable time limit.

Article IV of the May 17, 1968, National Agreement provides as follows:

"ARTICLE IV - CONTRACTING OUT

In the event a carrier plans to contract out

work within the scope of the applicable

schedule agreement, the carrier shall notify

the General Chairman of the organization

involved in writing as far in advance of the

date of the contracting transaction as is

practicable and in any event not less than 15

days prior thereto.

If the General Chairman, or his representa

tive, requests a meeting to discuss matters

relating to the said contracting transaction,

the designated representative of the carrier

shall promptly meet with him for that purpose.

Said carrier and organization representatives

shall make a good faith attempt to reach an

understanding concerning said contracting, but

if no understanding is reached the carrier may

nevertheless proceed with said contracting,

and the organization may file and progress

claims in connection therewith.

Nothing in this Article VI shall affect the

existing rights of either party in connection

with contracting out. Its purpose is to

require the carrier to give advance notice

and, if requested, to meet with the General

Chairman or his representative to discuss and

if possible reach an understanding in connec

tion therewith.

Existing rules with respect to contracting out

on individual properties may be retained in

their entirety in lieu of this rule by an

organization giving written notice to the

carrier involved at any time within 90 days

after the date of this agreement."

In connection with the above Agreement, the carriers, through the National Railway Labor Conference, assured the organization they would "assert good-faith efforts to reduce the incidence of subcontracting and increase the use of their maintenance of way forces to the extent practicable, including the procurement of rental equipment and operation thereof by carrier employees."

The Board has reviewed the record in this case and concludes the Carrier was in full compliance with the requirements of Article

VI of the May 17, 1968, National Agreement. Furthermore, we find the Carrier's use of a contractor to perform this work was justified and not in violation of either above commitment. It is evident the Carrier lacked both the equipment and personnel to perform the w There is no indication the Carrier failed to act in good faith. Its obligation was to increase the use of its own employees, not to increase the size of its work force. With all of its employees working, plus the hiring of seven new employees, the Board finds the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

A W A R D