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

This claim concerns the Organization's contention that the Carrier gave an outside contractor mowing work along the right-ofway and in lots on the C-Branch at Wylie, Nevada and Saltillo, Texas. The Organization also contends that the Carrier failed to give the General Chairman advance notice of the work.

In the latter part of the claim handling process, the Carrier denied contracting the work and made the assumption that the work in question was ordered by municipalities along the right of way. In response, the Organization presented a document which it claimed was a bill addressed to the Carrier for the work in question, amounting to 224 hours. The bill and attached memorandum were not signed, and the Carrier argued that the documentation was of doubtful authenticity.

The Board finds that the documents, while unsigned, do provide some basis for the organization's position. This is supported by the Carrier's initial response to the claim by the Dallas Division Superintendent, which stated in pertinent part as follows:

"Upon investigation of your claim, we found that due to the excessive amount of work on claim dates, all of Carrier's mowers and employees were busy mowing at different locations. Inasmuch as the company was subject to a large fine for each day the railroad right of way on the C-Branch was unmowed, it was necessary to call on an outside contractor. No one lost any wages due to this occurrence."

It would be difficult to find a more convincing statement than this one as to the fact that the work is regularly assigned to Carrier forces. Further, the reasons for use of an outside contractor could have been readily set forth to the Organization through advance notice to and conference with the General Chairman. This required procedure was not fbllowed here.

The Carrier also states that the Claimant and others were fully assigned to work on the- dates in question. In some circumstances this could make inappropriate the granting of additional pay to the Claimant. Here, however, the Board finds that a sustaining Award is appropriate owing to the lack of advance notice a= the concession that the work was at that moment assigned in other locations to Carrier forces.

The Award may be subject to modification based on the Carrier's contention that some .part of the claimed work is the subject of a different Claim. If the Carrier can promptly demonstrate to the Organization that this matter is, in part, the subject of a different sustained claim, the remedy here may be appropriately modified to avoid duplicate payment.

AWARD