(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces. (Iowa Bridge and Culvert Company) to perform Bridge and Building and Roadway Equipment Subdepartment work of dismantling the Sixth Street Bridge at Burlington, Iowa beginning June 14,1993 and continuing (System File C-93-C100-57/MWA 9310-27B).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to give the General Chairman advance written notice of its plans to contract out any of the above-described work, as stipulated in the Note to Rule 55.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, System Bridge and Building employees T. A. Carman, G.D. Fielding, S. T. McCullah, T. G. Myers, M. O. Gillette, J. P. Harkendortl', Group 1 Machine Operators M. H. Lowe, S. M. Carley, Group 2 Machine Operators R. A. Nelson and R. O. Frailey shall each be allowed an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours expended by the outside forces at their respective rates of pay."

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.

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

Pertinent to this dispute, on January 6,1991, the Carrier entered into a cost share agreement with the City of Burlington, Iowa (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT), regarding the Sixth Street Bridge. That bridge, located in Bdrlington, subsequently was replaced with the wider Valley Street Bridge. In furtherance of this renovation, the City and MOT contracted with the Iowa Bridge and Culvert Company (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor") to remove the Sixth Street Bridge. Commencing June 14,1993, the Contractor began dismantling the existing bridge.

On July 12,1993, the Organization submitted this claim asserting the Carrier had violated Rules 1, 2, and 5 of the Agreement. Specifically, the Organization maintained that because the Bridge was "Carrier property," it should have been dismantled by B&B employees who had built and maintained it for many years. The Organization further asserted that the Carrier's failure to give the General Chairman a 15 day advance notice of intent to contract out this work violated the Note to Rule 55.

The Carrier denied the claim, contending that the bridge dismantling was performed by the Contractor for the City and IDOT at the City's and IDOT's "sole instigation, control and expense." In support of its position, on February 23, 1994, the Carrier sent the Organization a copy of the January 6, 1991 "6th Street Bridge Cost Share Agreement."

Assuming, arguendo, that bridge dismantling work was reserved to Agreementcovered employees by expli is not liable when it no longer has dominion and control over the subject property on which the contracted-out dismantling work was performed. See Third Division Awards 23422, 26082, 28248, 28310, 29627, 32184, 32274, 32317, 32319 and Public Law Board No. 4768, Awards 10, 12, 15 and 27. Consequently, we find that neither the Scope Rule nor the Note to Rule 55 were violated. See Third Division Award 23422 and Public Law Board No. 4768, Award 10. Based on the foregoing, this claim is denied.