"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned an outside

contractor to repair the soffit (overhang) and guttering on Building

10 at the Beech Grove facility, Beech Grove, Indiana on September

19, 1996 and continuing (Carrier's File BMWE-304 NRP).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to give

the General Chairman proper advance written notice of its intent

to contract out the work cited in Part (1) above.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, ` . . . we request that Claimants K. Geis and D. Gates be paid for eight (8) hours straight time at the B&B Mechanic rate of pay and K. Kress be paid at the B&B Foreman rate of pay, for all the claim days listed and to continue until the contractor is removed from the property."'

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 claim raises the issue of sufficiency of the notice given by the Carrier to the General Chairman concerning the contracting out of soffit and gutter repairs to Building 10 at the Beach Grove facility in September 1996.

The record reflects that on May 20,1991, the Carrier sent the following notice to then General Chairman Cassese:

"We have recently learned of Amtrak's intent to contract out certain work in the project to modernize its Beech Grove, Indiana Maintenance Facility ....

A five-phase program is planned to accomplish a variety of changes. The implementation strategy is to do the projects first that will do the most to improve the efficiency of the overhaul work. Highly critical facility improvements and repairs such as roofs, cranes and waste systems are to be done during the first three phases, however, the majority of the projects are to be implemented in phases three, four and five. The attached Exhibit `A', Planned Implementation Schedule, and Exhibit `B', Work To Be Performed By Contractor, describes the planned work in more detail. The total cost of this project is estimated $34,900,000.

This major construction project requires skill, manpower, equipment and construction expertise not available to Amtrak for a project of this magnitude. Further, the maintenance forces at the facility are and will be fully engaged in their regular maintenance, project and support work. Finally, no Amtrak employees will be furloughed as a result of the contracting of work in this project . . . ."

The planned implementation schedule set forth a tentative date for commencement in July 1991, with work to continue through 1995. One of the projects slotted into phases 1, 2 and 5 included roof replacements, with the work to be performed by the contractor to include replacement of roofing joists and installation of roofs with an insulation and drainage system.

A conference was held on this notice on June 27, 1991, with a follow-up letter stating that Phases 2 and 3 were not yet funded, and that track forces at Beech Grove would not increase. The Beech Grove modernization project commenced in 1991 and continued when funding became available for the different phases.

On September 27, 1996, the Carrier sent then General Chairman Geller the following notice:

"We have recently learned of Amtrak's intent to contract certain reroofing installations on four (4) buildings at our Beech Grove Mechanical Facility.

In general, the work involves manufacturer certification for installation of the new roofing product on three (3) buildings. The fourth building requires extensive repairs to the substrate. Contractor will install vertical steel siding on sections of two (2) buildings. Lastly, one (1) building requires extensive soffit and gutter work.

Work To be Performed by Contractor

* All roof installation and repairs.

* Installation of vertical siding where needed.

* Repairs to soffits and gutters where required.

Work To Be Performed by Amtrak

* Removal or relocation of roof mounted equipment.

* Repair of roof drains below roofs to ground.

* Inspection and protection when required."

A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization has met its burden of proving a notice violation herein. While the Carrier contended that the May 1991 notice covered this gutter and soffit work begun in September 1996, a review of the language of the September 1996 notice nowhere revealed any mention of this work being part of the Beech Grove modernization project dealt within the prior notice. Nor does it refer to the prior notice or indicate that this was a duplicate notice. In fact, the record reveals that the contract for the roofing work in issue was entered into in June 1996, not as part of the original 1991 project. Further, the September 1996 notice language may well have led the Organization to believe that it was a different project, for it specifies its intended duration (five months) and estimated cost ($1.6 million) and makes no reference to phase five of the original modernization project. All of these facts, coupled with the sending of a different notice, support the Organization's contention that it was the September 27, 1996 notice that the Carrier intended to cover the particular work in issue. There is no dispute that such notice was sent after the contract was entered into and the work had commenced. In such situation, the Carrier has clearly violated the language and intent of Rule 24.

What remains to be considered is the appropriate remedy for such violation. Neither the Organization's nor the Carrier's cases dealing with monetary relief for proven bad faith or a notice violation originate on this property. The Board is conscious of the fact that not only is there a divergence of views concerning the appropriateness of a monetary remedy for a fully employed claimant, but that a body of precedent may exist on one property supporting one result while a different result may be appropriate elsewhere. That being said, we are aware of one on-property Award, Third Division Award 27614, which contains a vigorous dissent by the Carrier. In that case, the violation of Rule 24 found by the Board was a result of the Carrier's failure to prove its affirmative defense of an emergency situation requiring the contracting. There was advance notice and conferencing concerning the overall nature of the issue of contracting the disputed work prior to the actual contract protested. Thus, the monetary remedy ordered to fully employed Claimants was not for a notice violation, but for a contracting violation itself, and based upon the rationale that such nature of a violation merits payment.

We are unaware of any precedent on the property for awarding monetary compensation to fully employed claimants for a notice violation. See Third Division Award 35645. Under the factual circumstances of this case, the Board is unable to support a finding that the Claimants suffered a lost work opportunity or that the nature

of the violation requires monetary relief. This is especially true where the parties disputed throughout the handling of the claim on the property whether the 1991 notice covered the work in issue, and whether the conference which occurred encompassed this part of the overall project. Accordingly, we conclude that the Carrier violated Rule 24 by failing to give the General Chairman advance written notice of the contracting in issue, but that no monetary relief is appropriate.

AWARD