(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier used an outside concern to unload crossties on the right-of-way between Mile Posts 29 and 38, Mile Posts 67 and 86.50, Mile Posts 86.75 and 106.50 and between Mile Posts 145 and 160 on the Nebraska Division on March 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, 1987 (System File M579/870567G).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the carrier failed to schedule and hold a meeting to discuss its plans to assign said work to outside forces as requested by the General chairman in his letter dated January 26, 1987.

(3) Because of the aforesaid violations, Group 19 Roadway Equipment Subdepartment Operator D. Morgan shall be allowed sixty-four (64) hours of pay at the Class A Roadway Equipment Operator's rate of pay."

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

By letter dated January 14, 1987, the Carrier advised the Organization of its intent to solicit bids to cover tie unloading operations in 1987 for system tie gang programs. By letter dated January 26, 1987, the Organization objected to the Carrier's contracting out the work and requested a conference be held prior to the work being assigned to and performed by a contractor. Conference was held on May 6, 1987 without resolution.

The contractor's forces began the work on March 4, 1987.

With respect to the merits, this matter has been addressed before on the property and has been resolved in the Organization's favor. Third Division Award 28590. That award is not palpably in error and shall be followed.

With respect to the remedy, in Award 28590, the remedy was limited to compensation for times the affected employee was in furloughed status. But we are cognizant of the organization's argument in this matter that aside from the merits, the carrier did not comply with its notice obligations in that the work was contracted out notwithstanding the organization's request for a conference before the work began. However, given the status of remedies for notice violations on the property at the time of the incidents in this case, the organization's argument does not change a conclusion in this matter that relief should be limited to times, if any, when claimant was in a furloughed status when the contractor performed the work. See Third Division Awards 23578, 26174. Compare Third Division Awards 30286, 30066, 29310 and our discussion in Third Division Award 31030.

For reasons of stability, we are obligated to follow those Awards which addressed the status of remedial relief on the property as of the time of the events in this case. Therefore, in this case, compensation for claimant, if any, shall be limited to times Claimant was in a furloughed status when the work was performed by the contractor.

AWARD