(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier

assigned outside forces (Loram Equipment

Company) to perform machine operatorand

helper work (grinding surface flaws) on

various tracks between Avondale and Houston,

Texas beginning September 9, 1991 and .

continuing (System File MW-92-4/MofW 152-1182

SPE).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with advance written notice of its intention to contract out said work as required by Article 36.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, furloughed Machine Operators S.E. Laird and B.F. Swearengin, and furloughed Machine Operator Helpers G. Leos, A. Young and C.H. Dennison shall each be allowed three hundred and thirty-six (336) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates, four hundred twenty-four (424) hours pay at their respective time and one-half rates and they shall each be credited with forty-two (42) days for vacation qualifying purposes, all on a continuing basis."

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.

The facts and positions of the Parties in this case are essentially identical to those in Third Division Award 30180, involving these same Parties. In that case, the Board held as follows:

"... The Board concurs with the Organization that it need not meet an 'exclusivity' test to advance its Claim to rail grinding work. However, the Carrier has established that outside forces have performed rail grinding work over many years and have done so on repeated occasions during the period that the Carrier's own rail grinders were in operation. Further, .the Carrier makes a credible case that the Loram equipment here under review provides service not obtainable from the Carrier's own equipment. On either of these bases, the Board determines that the currently cited instance of use of Loram equipment is not 'within the scope of the applicable schedule agreement' and thus not covered by Article 36."

A careful review of the record in the instant case does not persuade the Board that it should depart from its determination in the above-cited case.

AWARD