"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Company assigned outside

forces (B. Schwartz Company) to perform Bridge and Building

Subdepartment work (boarding up/installing plywood on windows

and doors) at the Port Richmond Grain Storage Building from

February 2 through 27, 1990 (System Docket MW-1479).

(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 the Scope Rule.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants G. A. Golden, J. L. Royer, M .D. Tallarida, J. H. Love, J. V. Lucas, Jr., R J. Dullatteo and D. J. Lauer shall each be allowed one hundred forty-four (144) hours' pay at their respective rates."

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

Parties to said dispute were giNen due notice of hearing thereon.

In 1990, the Carrier contracted with outside forces to have the windows and doors of a structure, abandoned for Carrier use since 1983, boarded up with plywood. The purpose, according to the Carrier, was "to secure the premises and restrict entry".

The Organization contends that work of this nature is performed by Bridge and Building Subdepartment emploNees and that the Carrier failed to provide notice to the General Chairman of the work proposed for contracting.

The building was on the Carrier's property and within its control. Nevertheless, there is no dispute that it has not served any purpose in terms of the Carrier's railroad operations for the previous seven years. The Board finds no basis to dispute the Organization's contention that work of this nature is, on occasion, performed by :Maintenance of Way employees. !1 hether such work comes under the applicable Scope Rule, however, is debated by the parties. Here resolution of the Scope issue is not required. The Board concurs with the reasoning presented in Third Division Award 1999.1, although it is understood that a different Carrier and Article IV of the 1968 National Agreement are involved. That Award reads in pertinent part as follows:

". . . We have held in a long line of awards that work on facilities owned by Carrier, but used for purposes other than the operation or maintenance of the railroad, do not come under the scope rule of the agreement (Awards 19639, 19253, 9602, .1783 and others). With respect to abandoned facilities we have ruled similarly. For example, in Award 12918 we said:

'Since the .Agreements pertain to work off carrying on Carriers' business as a common carrier, we must conclude that the work of dismantling and removing completely the abandoned property does not fail within the contemplation of the parties. This work cannot be considered maintenance, repair or construction.'

We must conclude that tNork on abandoned facilities, even through Carrier retains o«nership of the property, is not work contemplated by the

"parties to the Agreement and such work is not within the scope of the applicable schedule Agreement."

AWARD