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

The Claim before the Board protests the Carrier's use of an outside contractor to perform remodeling work on the second floor of the 5500 Ferguson Building in East Los Angeles. The Claim lists as a specific example of the remodeling work, the construction of a conference room. The Parties' agreement contains the following language relative to contracting out:

"(a) By agreement between the Company and the General

chairman work customarily performed by emDlovees

covered under this Agreement may be let to

contractors and be performed by contractors'

forces. However, such work may only be contracted

provided that special skills not possessed by the

Company's employees, svecial equipment not owned by

the Company. or special material available only

when apRlied or installed through a_»nnlier~, are

required; or when work is such that the Company is

not adecruatelv eguinoed to handle the work. or when

emeraencv time recui_rements exist which present

undertakings not contemplated by the Aareement and

beyond the capacity of the Company's forces. In

the event the Company'plans to contact out work

because of one of the criteria described herein, it

shall notify the General Chairman of the

organization in writing as far in advance of the

date of the contracting transaction as is

practicable and in-any event not less than fifteen

(15) days prior thereto, except in `emergency time

requirements' cases. If the General Chairman, or

his. representative, requests a meeting to discuss

matters relating to the said contracting

transaction, the designated representative of the

Company shall promptly meet with him for that

purpose. Said Company and organization

representatives shall make a good faith attempt to

reach an understanding concerning said contracting

but if no understanding is reached the company may

nevertheless proceed.-with said contracting and the

Oraanization may file and progress claims in

connection therewith.

Among the many issues raised by the organization is whether advance notice was given. The Organization asserts notice was not given. The Carrier says it was. The issue in this case is not whether notice was given. Notice unquestionably was given, contrary to the assertions of the Organization. The question is whether it was adequate. The Carrier sent the following letter to the General Chairman on October 19, 1987:

"This to advise of the solicitation of bids covering the remodeling of the north and east sides of the second floor of the 5500 building in East Los Angeles, California, to accommodate the relocation offices of the Sales, Law and Claims Departments.

This work will primarily involve the relocation and installation of moveable partitions and walls, as well as painting, ceiling work and new carpeting. It is imperative the work be performed as expeditiously as possible."

The General Chairman responded by letter on October 30, 1987. He did not request a conference, but instead, set forth his opposition and reasons therefore in his letter. The Board notes he took no issue with the adequacy of the notice. Later the General Chairman claimed that the October 19, 1987, letter did not constitute notice because it did not specify that a conference room was being constructed and because it did not set forth the reasons for the contracting out.

The Board finds that the notice was adequate. The notice informed the organization what kind of work was going to be done and where it was going to be done. It was sufficient to say that remodeling was going to take place, including the relocation and installation of walls. It is not reasonable to suggest that the carrier must specify what kind of space or room the relocation might create, i.e., conference room, computer room, or storage. The fact the notice did not say that a conference room was going to be built did not prejudice the Organization's ability to evaluate the notice or proceed with the Claim. If it wanted more detail, it could have asked. As for whether it is necessary to cite reasons for a notice under Rule 52, we note that Rule 52 contains no such requirement. The organization is correct that the December 11, 1981, National Letter of Agreement does require that reasons must be stated in notices required thereunder. However, there is a basis to question whether that applied in view of the fact the Parties adopted Rule 52 in 1973. In any event, the notice of October 19, 1987, did imply the contracting was necessitated by the need for expedition.

The remaining relevant issues revolve around whether the work in question is "customarily" performed by bargaining unit employees. If it is, there are limited circumstances under which the carrier may contract the work out.

In fulfilling its burden of demonstrating that the work has, indeed, been customarily performed by employees under the Agreement, it is the Board's opinion that exclusivity need not be shown. To say that something has customarily been done is not necessarily to say it has been exclusively done. Exclusivity suggests a uniform and undifferentiated practice. Custom is less restrictive and suggests that when something is customarily done, it is the ordinary, usual, and normal course of action. This term leaves room for exceptions and departures.

The Board is not convinced by this record that employees have "customarily" done remodeling projects in Carrier buildings. While there is evidence that Carrier forces have done remodeling projects, there is just as reliable evidence suggesting that contractors for many years have done remodeling projects. This mixed practice makes it difficult to conclude that it has been the Carriers usual course of action to have its forces do remodeling projects. Thus, no violation can be found. This is a particularly appropriate conclusion since the Parties, when they negotiated Rule 52, permitted the Carrier in Rule 52 (b) to preserve existing practices. There is evidence in the record concerning the use of contractors for remodeling which predates the negotiation of Rule 52 (b). Accordingly, this practice is unaffected by the dictates of Rule 52 in any event.

A W A R D