(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (T. C. Taylor and Company) to perform right of way cleaning work (removal of ties, tie butts and debris) between Mile Post 73.00 and Mile Post 122.00 in the vicinity of Menoken, Sullivan and Marysville, Kansas beginning April 24, 1989 and continuing (System File S-196/890447).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with advance

w'tten contract out

ri notice of its intention to

said work as required by Rule 52.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Roadway Equipment Operators I. R. Gilbert, R. P. McNelis, J. F. Gerrard and D. J. Kobza shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours worked by the outside contractor performing the work in Part (1) above."

The Claim herein is described by the organization as follows:

"Beginning April 24, 1989, without advance notice or conference with the General Chairman, the Carrier assigned or otherwise permitted four (4) employes of an outside concern (T. C. Taylor and Company) to perform right of way cleaning work removing ties, tie butts and debris between Mile Post 73.0 and Mile Post 122.0 in the vicinity of Menoken, Sullivan and Marysville, Kansas."

The Carrier states that it did provide notice of such contract work in a letter dated January 19, 1989, advising of the Carrier's intent "to solicit bids covering the pick up, removal, disposing and loading of crossties, switch ties and crossing timbers released from the Company's annual tie renewal programs on Service Units 6, 7, 8 and 9".

Without addressing further the question of advance notice, the Board nevertheless determines that, as described by both the Carrier and the Organization, the work is of a nature customarily performed by employees represented by the Organization. The instances of "past practice" cited by the Carrier is unconvincing as to the "pick up, removal, disposing and loading" work involved here. Simply put, the Carrier has not demonstrated any convincing basis which required or permitted the contracting of such work under Rule 52.

As to remedy, the Organization asserts that the Claimants were in furlough status. Thus, a genuine loss of work opportunity is demonstrated.