"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (J. L. Mathison) to pick up crosaties near Wainwright, Oklahoma, from Mile Post 146 to Mile Post 155 and haul and load them into gondola cars at Checotah, Oklahoma on September 27, 29 and 30, 1990 (Carrier's File 910157 MPR).

(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National

Agreement when it failed to furnish the General Chairman with

proper advance written notice of its intention to contract out said

work.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (l) and/or (2) above, KO&G employes J. P. Mericle, K. W. Lynch, D. Patton. R. D. McDonald, B. W. Griffin. K. R. Austin, N. L. Harjo, B. Brown and D. G. Clifford shall each be allowed pay for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by the contractor on September 27, 29, and 30, 1990."

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.

This dispute arises from the same notice discussed in Third Division Award 32744.

By notice dated December 28, 1989, the Carrier notified the Organization that:

"This is to advise of the Carrier's intent to solicit bids to cover the removal of trackage and appurtenances on the Oklahoma Subdivision between Muskogee, Oklahoma (MP 130.00) and KOG Junction, Oklahoma (MP 297.6) in conjunction with Company forces. Estimated duration of project will be between six to twelve months."

By letter dated January 29, 1990, the Organization acknowledged receipt of the notice and confirmed that a conference was held on December 28, 1889 where the Organization objected to the contracting. The Organization further contended in its January 29, 1990 letter that the notice was vague.

With respect to notice, as confirmed by the Organization's January 29, 1990 letter, we find that notice of contracting was given and conference between the parties was held as specified in Article IV. We further find that the notice was sufficiently specific.

As to the merits of the contracting action, on the property in its June 10, 1991 letter, the Carrier stated that "It1he fact is the Organization has long acquiesced to this work without benefit of notice and it is only in the last few years that any claims have been progressed . . . ." Therefore, the record establishes that this kind of work has been contracted in the past without objection by the Organization. Further, this claim involves the same kind of work resulting in denials of claims by this Board where we found that "in the past the Carrier has contracted out similar work which has been

The Carrier's other arguments are moot.

AWARD