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.
By memorandum dated February 2, 2002, the Carrier notified the Organization's General Chairman of projects in the coming year that might potentially be contracted out. On March 14, 2001, the Carrier sent a letter to the General Chairman listing additional work that the Carrier planned to contract out. By letter dated March 20, 2001, the Organization responded to the Carrier's notices. In that letter the Organization made reference to discussions between the Parties regarding the work at issue. It also contended that the Carrier could lease the equipment and use BMWE-represented employees to operate it, rather than have a contractor's employees operate the equipment. In a letter dated March 30, 2001, the Organization reiterated its position and noted that, despite discussions between the Parties, it opposed the Carrier's allowing other than BMWErepresented employees to operate the equipment needed for the projects in question.
On August 13, 2001, the Organization filed the foregoing claim. It stated that the work at issue (planting and seeding) had previously been done by employees from the B&B Department. In its October 3, 2001 denial, the Carrier stated:
The Carrier also contended that the Organization had been properly notified in accordance with the Agreement between the parties.
After carefully reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Carrier gave the Organization ample notice and opportunity for discussion before contracting out the work in question. Further, in the two initial claim letters from the Organization, it acknowledged that it had multiple discussions with the Carrier concerning the matter. While it is clear that the Organization did not agree with the Carrier's position and continued to disagree even after discussions between the Parties, there is no showing that the Carrier acted in other than good faith. Moreover, the Organization failed to prove that the work at issue was specifically reserved to BMWE-represented employees. Therefore, we find that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement when it contracted out the work in this case.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.