(1) Claim on behalf of Larry Zwiefel, crew member for one-hundred and twelve (112) hours straight time at the applicable crane operator's rate of pay for lost work opportunities as a result of the Carrier's alleged utilizing and [sic] outside contractor, Railroad Specialist Systems, to perform tie handling, sorting and piling within the Carrier's single tracking project on the Minneapolis, Minnesota to Milwaukee, Wisconsin Corridor. Organization's File No. C-17-91-C080-07."

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.

The Claimant in this case holds seniority as a machine Operator and has routinely been assigned to perform crane operating work such as recovering used ties.

Beginning April 29 and continuing through May 17, 1991, the Carrier hired an outside contractor to operate a crawler crane to recover ties, and sort through reusable ties and scrap ties. The contractor's employee expended 112 man-hours to perform this work.

The Organization filed a claim arguing that this type of work has been customarily and historically been performed by Maintenance of Way employees. Furthermore, it points out that per the Agreement, the Carrier must give advance notice of its intention to contract out. In this instance, the organization alleges the Carrier did not give the General Chairman advance written no=ice. Finally, the Organization contends that the Claimant was qualified and available to perform the work in question. had he been afforded the opportunity to do so.

The Carrier denied the claim contending that the Claima== was working on another assignment on the date in question. Therefore, he suffered no monetan-loss. Furthermore, the Carrier argued that the work in question did not exclusively belong to Maintenav== of Way employees.

In the Organization's appeal, it argued that the Carrier "had failed to timely deny this dispute in accordance with Schedule Rule 47". It reiterated i=s position that the Carrier violated =,:le 1 of the Agreement.

Again, the Carrier denied the claim contending tha= the Organization had fail=d to meet its burden of proof. The Ca=rier took the position that "the Organization's claim in this dispute was purely speculati-:=- unsupported by factual evidence."

This Board has ==:·iewed the record in this case, and we find that it is a duplicate to Docket MW-30665. Apparent!:, the organization filed its notice to the Board on May 20, 19:=, in Docket MW-30686. The Carrier had already filed its notice wi=g the Board on April 24, 19:2, in this case. Dockez MW-30686 was argued before Referee Mikrut cn January 10, 1995. 7'=is case was arc__d on May 11, 1995.

The Third Division with Referee Mikrut entered Award 313:5 in Docket MW-30686 on Fat-ruary 29, 1996. In that case, which is the identical case to this case involving the same 112 hours of pay being sought by Claim.aa Zwiefel, the Third -~ivision award== that the claim be sustain== pursuant to Rule -^_7. Since this ca=a has already been ruled upon by the Board in the earlier docket, w- find that this case should be dismissed.

AWARD