(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without conferring and reaching an understanding with the General Chairman in accordance with Rule 2, it assigned an outside concern (E. & M. Services) to perform the maintenance work of reconstructing road crossings on the Portsmouth Subdivision of the Florence Division on May 4 and 5, 1990. [System File 90-68/12 (90-966) SSY].

(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Foreman M. C. Thomason, Assistant Foreman J. T. McGee, Machine Operator L. D. Davis and Trackmen T. L. Boykins, Jr., W. A. Edwards and L. A. Artis shall each be allowed pay in the amount of an equal proportionate share at their appropriate Track Subdepartment, Group A, pro-rata rate for the total of 40 hours straight-time work performed by the contractor's employes and also, an equal proportionate share at their respective time and one-half rate for the total of sixty (60) hours overtime worked by the contractor's employes after the Claimants' assigned hours on Friday, May 4, 1990 and their rest day, Saturday, May 5, 1990.'1

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

By letter of March 26, 1990, Carrier notified the Organizaticn as follows:

"This will serve as notice of Carrier's intent to contract for the repaving of road crossings on the Raleigh/Rocky Mount Seniority District, Florence Division ....

Contract of the foregoing is necessary due to the unavailability of skilled forces and equipment with which the work may be done. Furthermore, as you are well aware, it is and has been the Carrier's position that such work does not accrue to MofW forces and this notice is in keeping with our commitment to you of advice when outside parties are on or near company property ....11

The Parties conferred on the matter on April 3, 1990, but failed reach accord. On May 4 and 5, 1990, Carrier used its forces repair a road crossing near Branchville, Virginia, on the Flor,~r7= Division. Upon completion of the track work, an outside contractor paved the prepared crossing and the approaches leading to the track structure.

The Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants named above on July 3, 1990. Among the Rules cited in that cia:m was Rule 2 - Contracting. Carrier denied the claim, pointing

that it had, in fact, served timely notice on the Organization rn compliance with the specific provisions of Rule 2. In addition, the organization disputed carrier's assertions that it lacked sufficient forces and equipment to perform the work at issue. The claim was subsequently progressed up to and including the highest

94-3-92-3-12