(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Muller Construction Company) to remove and burn drift from Bridge No. 4662 in Coffeyville, Kansas on May 1, 4, 19, and 20, 1987 (Carrier's File 870795 MPR).

(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it failed to notify the General Chairman in writing of its intention to contract out said work.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to Parts (1) and/or (2) above, B&B employes J. A. Henderson, A. J. Hill, G. Fisher, M. R. Cordray, J. A. LaFon, A. L. Howell, and J. H. Duggin shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the thiry-two (32) hours expended by the contractor performing the work mentioned in Part (1) above."

The basic facts are not disputed. Without advance notice the Carrier contracted with an outside concern to remove drift from Bridge 466-2. The contractor, working with one B&B employee, utilized a backhoe and small dozer to remove and burn the debris in question.

This case involves the application of Article IV of the May 17, 1968 Agreement concerning contracting out. There are several issues presented. They are (1) was advance notice required? (2) is the work in question scope-covered? and (3) if either question is answered affirmatively, is a monetary remedy appropriate?

With respect to the issue of notice, we find that advance notice was required. Third Division Award 28654, a case involving these same Parties, held, in part, that the Carrier must give notice of its plans to subcontract work " . . which may arguably come within the Organization's jurisdiction of work . ." In cases of mixed practice, notice is required. Although it must be kept in mind that the giving of notice is not a concession that the work is ultimately scope-covered or that subcontracting is prohibited.

The next issue is whether the work is scope-covered. First, the Board is not convinced that this particular work is reserved to the bargaining unit by the specific, clear, and unambiguous language of the Agreement. We are also not convinced that the Parties have mutually agreed through practice, by any standard, that the removal of drift from bridges is work reserved to B&B employees. Two additional ancillary comments can be made. First, the Board is not convinced that the Carrier did not make a goodfaith effort to procure rental equipm has not adequately rebutted the Carriers contention that all available personnel were occupied.

The remaining question is whether any monetary remedy is appropriate due to the fact no notice was issued. We note in this regard that the Claimants were fully employed, and we are not convinced of a discernable lost work opportunity. The remedy is therefore, limited to directing the carrier to issue notice in the future under similar circumstances.

AWARD