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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

On April 3, 1990, Carrier notified the Organization of its intent to solicit bids form contractors "to assist gangs unloading and laying track panel at St. Joseph, Missouri." During an April 16, 1990 conference with regard to the subcontracting, General Chairman Borden asserted that the work under discussion "belonged" to Maintenance of Way employees since they "had performed such work in the past" and were "sufficiently skilled to do this." Further, the General Chairman urged Carrier to rent "the modern, sophisticated equipment needed for the job." Finally, the General Chairman objected that Carrier's notice "did not contain a specific location where the work was to be done, nor the equipment necessary to perform the work."

On April 18, 1990, Carrier sent the following correspondence to the Organization:

"As a matter of accepted past practice and consistent with the Labor Contract, there is no impropriety whatsoever in the Company contracting this wont. In each of these instances of contracting you have been given a reasonable, complete and accurate description of the work being contracted by the Company. None of the contracting which you have protested involves Scope covered work."

In that connection, Carrier submitted a list of 20 "recent instances in which the Organization had sent letters to Carrier protesting notices of Carrier's intent to subcontract work."

Organization noted that Claimant Eichelberger was working "a lower rated position", and Claimant Kinney "remained furloughed" on the claim dates.

The Organization premised its claim upon two issues; (1) Carrier did not serve proper notice with respect to the work being subcontracted and, (2) Carrier contracted out Scope covered work "belonging" to the MotW employees. In our considered judgement. neither of those positions is sustainable on this record.

On April 3, 1990, Carrier notified the Organization that it intended to solicit bids for the specific task of: "assist gangs unloading and laying track panel in yards" at St. .Joseph, Missouri. We find no deficiency or inadequacy in that notice and we note that it was the basis for a pre-contracting discussion between Carrier and the Organization. Regarding the claimed Scope Rule violation, it was incumbent upon the Organization to prove, by a preponderance of record evidence, that the work at issue "belongs" to Mofw employees by virtue of a custom, practice or tradition of routine performance. Evidence sufficient to carry that burden of persuasion is lacking in this record. Aside from bare assertions, the Organization did not offer any probative evidence which support a conclusion that Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the Agreement when it subcontracted the work in dispute. Based on the foregoing, this claim is denied.

AWARD