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.
This dispute involves Carrier's action in contracting remodeling work. The original claim, filed on July 7, 1993, alleges that no advance written notice was given to the Organization of the intent to contract this work which Claimants had performed in the past. Carrier's September 3, 1993 response notes that Claimants were fully employed, asserts that it gave written notice on April 23, 1993 and references a file number where that notice is contained, with no objection having been raised by the Organization. The Organization's appeal dated September 21, 1993 again states that Carrier failed to give proper notice. The exchange of correspondence continued on the property in November.1993 when a new General Chairman became involved. The matter was conferenced in February 1994 which was confirmed by letter dated April 13, 1994.
By letter dated May 23, 1994, Carrier again clarified its position that the work in issue was covered by a contracting notice that had previously been referred to but not made part of the record. Carrier attached a copy of the April 23, 1993 notice to that correspondence. The notice purportedly covers the work in issue and states the reason for contracting as lack of adequate equipment and staff to perform the work. The parties agreed on August 30,1994 to extend the time limits for submitting this claim to the Board until November 30,1994. This matter was ultimately forwarded to the Board on November 29, 1994. Form 1 Award No. 32940
The Organization argues that this is scope-covered work and that it was entitled to advance written notice of contracting pursuant to Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement. It relies upon the following on-property Awards to support its contention that the failure to provide such notice warrants an award of damages: Third Division Awards 30977, 31479, 31597, 31619, 31777, 32096, 32160, 32312 and 32446.
Carrier contends that the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proving a violation, citing Third Division Awards 20573, 30224 and 30716. It argues that the Board cannot resolve conflicting facts and should dismiss the claim because there is a conflict concerning Carrier's notification. Third Division Awards 20408, 27853, 27857, 28790 and 28794. Carrier also asserts that Claimants suffered no loss of earnings as a result of this contracting, and, therefore, no monetary remedy is appropriate.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that notice was required in this case, and the outcome of this claim must turn on whether Carrier gave such notice. While there is no doubt that Carrier merely identified the date and location of the notice it contended covered this work early in the claim processing and prior to the conference without attaching a copy of it to its correspondence, the record reveals that a copy of such notice was included with its final clarification letter in May 1994, some six months prior to the filing of this claim with the Board. Thereafter, the Organization did not contest its existence, accuracy or application to the work in issue on the property, albeit, still arguing that Carrier failed to serve proper notice in its Submission to the Board.
On the basis of this record, we conclude that Carrier satisfied its Article IV obligation to notify the Organization of its intent to contract out the work in dispute, and that the Organization failed to prove any other basis for finding a violation of the Agreement.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.