"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Herzog Contracting Corporation) to perform Maintenance of Way and Structures Department work (operate crawler type backhoe) to clean out right of way ditches between Mile Posts 452 and 466 on the Trenton Subdivision beginning on June 30, 2000 and continuing through July 21, 2000, instead of Machine Operator L. D. Taylor (System File 2RA7-9179T/1246965 CNW).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with a proper advance written notice of its intent to contract out the above-referenced work or make a good-faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning such contracting as required by Rule 1(b).

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimant L. D. Taylor shall now be compensated for one hundred twenty (120) hours' pay at his applicable straight time rate of pay."

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.

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

The Carrier notified the General Chairman by letter dated April 10, 2000 of its intent to contract out work involving a "Specialized Ditching Mach. 4/25 until finished Trenton [subdivision] MP485.0 to MP64.0." Conference was held on April 20, 2000. This claim followed.

The Carrier's letter of April 10, 2000 complied with its notice obligations under Rule I(b).

Rule I (b) also provides, in pertinent part:

"By agreement between the Company and the General Chairman, work as described in the preceding paragraph which is customarily performed by employes described herein, may be let to contractors and be performed by contractor's forces. However, such work may only be contracted provided that special skills not possessed by the Company's employes, special equipment not owned by the Company, or special material available only when applied or installed through supplier, are required; or unless work is such that the Company is not adequately equipped to handle the work; or time requirements must be met which are beyond the capabilities of the Company forces to meet."

The dispute is over a ditcher utilized by the contractor and not possessed by the Carrier. The Carrier described the ditcher as follows:

". . . The purpose of this ditcher was to pick up and remove mud and ' rocks thru cuts and areas that required the material to be loaded into cars for removal. This machine is a special design "prototype" machine that has open well cars and a specially designed digging machine that moves on the outer railings of the car. This machine is sell-propelled and requires a duly qualified employee who is familiar with its design, capabilities, function operation, and handling. This machine is not similar to anything the Union Pacific has, or has access to for its own Machine Operators to operate . . . ."

Rule 1(b) provides that ". . . such work may only be contracted provided that special skills not possessed by the Company's employes, special equipment not owned by the Company . . . ." Notwithstanding the Organization's arguments that the Carrier had equipment that could do the work, the ditcher in question falls within the "special equipment" provision of Rule 1(b).

AWARD