1. The carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces to build partitions and rooms in the depot at Coffeyville, Kansas on August 17 through 21, 1987 (Carriers File 870840 MPR).

2. The carrier also violated the Agreement when it failed to give the General Chairman at least fifteen (15) days* advance notice of its plan to contract out the work described in Part (1) hereof.

3. As a consequence of the violations referred to in either Part (1) and/or Part (2) hereof, B&B Foreman J.A. Henderson, Assistant Foreman X.R. Cordray, Mechanic G. Fisher, Helper J.A. LaFon and Motor Car operator G.J. Durst shall each be paid ` ·. for an equal proportionate amount each Claimant for eight (8) hours each day plus overtime for August 17 - 21, 1987 account contractor worked (2) men.1"

The parties to this dispute are subject to Article IV of the May 17, 1968, Agreement which applies to contracting out. In the case before the Board, the Organization protests the use of a contractor to, essentially, remodel the depot at Coffeyville, Kansas. In its initial claim, the organization asserted this work was scope Rule covered and argued that advance notice was required. The Carrier responded by providing a long list of projects in the past where contractors were used without protest by the organization. Eventually the organization provided a number of statements from employees and former employees attesting to the fact in the past they did a number of building projects.

The Board, after reviewing the record, is convinced of several things. First, the organization has demonstrated enough history of performing this particular type of work to convince us that, as a general matter, it is entitled to advance notice for these kinds of projects. However, we are also convinced that the organization has slept on the right to notice for many years. Thus, given this acquiescence, no remedy is appropriate for the lack of notice in this case except to direct the carrier to comply with the notice requirements in the future for projects of this nature. Where there is a history and custom, not necessarily exclusively, however, of employees performing certain work, notice is required. of course, the fact notice is required does not mean contracting out cannot take place. The ultimate propriety of the Carrier's actions must be judged on the traditional criteria.

A W A R D