Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 38151
 Docket No. MW-37501
 07-3-02-3-585

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.



STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



Fnrm t Award No. 38151
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-37501
 07-3-02-3-585


FINDINGS:

 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,
a~ approved du'-11_n4 Grt, 17J+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




In a memorandum dated Februarv 2, 2001, the Carrier notified the Organization's General Chairman of its intention to contract out certain projects in the coming year, if and when the Carrier found it lacked sufficient qualified supervisory personnel and/or available employees. The Carrier listed the



Prospective -roje~LJ o11 LllC JV~VAHU a11U L1111U ilagcO Vl vaal. a~emoraaauuau. vaa i.auaa.aa 14, 2001, the Carrier sent a letter to the General Chairman regarding its intention to contract out some of the work on a new siding not mentioned in the February 2, 2001 memorandum. At the end of each of these notices, the Carrier stated, in words or substance, that the Organization should "feel free to contact [the Carrierj" if it wished to discuss the notices and/or arrange a meeting between the Carrier and the Organization.


On March 20 and March 30, 2001, the Organization sent the Carrier letters expressing its concern over the work to be contracted out. In each letter, the Organization acknowledged that discussions regarding the work in question had


e._1 ,._. _.7 ,._ 7+ F 47 .... 6 7 ht._1-:4 h J e. n~n 1n~1 *hn n r.f~.nn~ir.r naa* of ·hn nn~atol
 L6114C11 ~71QL.G. 1L LULL1aG1 11VLGU L11KL 1L aaKU ilrVL~SL~la ~aaL. l.Vaa~KL.Uaa~ V~L V~ ~aai KYLKKa work and suggested that the Carrier lease the necessary equipment and allow BMWE-represented employees to operate it.
 Form 1 Award No. 38151
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-37501

On August 15 2001 the Organization filed the above claim on behalf of the six mentioned employees. It alleged that outside contractors had performed BMWE scope covered work, in violation of the Parties' Agreement. Specifically, the claim alleged,


      "The . . . Contractor engaged in digging out the clay, installing riprap and reestablishing the contour of the bank . . . .


      The above-mentioned work has long been the work of the B&B department with help from the track gangs. The Carrier violated Rule 1, Rule 3, Rule 11, and Appendix "1^1", Letters of Understanding re Contracting Out.»

                . . a ,tlaavuc.


In its denial of the Organization's claim, the Carrier pointed out that the work at issue was contained in the original notice to the Organization on February 2, 2001, and contended that the Organization had thus been properly notified. The Organization appealed the denial on December 12, 2001. That appeal was denied. In its denial, the Carrier reaffirmed its position that the Organization had received proper notice of the work to be performed and that, at the Organization's request, the Parties had discussed the work to be contracted out.


A review of the record indicates that the Carrier did, in fact, give the Organization ample. notice o_f the gneeffir work to blo F...-MW inaV1GVVGl,Io--a^-----

            a i. peravaaua,u. aV1GVVGl, 111 Its

first claim letter the Organization acknowledged that the matter had been discussed.
 There is no mandate in the contract language cited that, after the required
 discussion opportunity, the Parties' have to agree on the contracting out (or not) of
 the work at issue. Further, there is no indication in the record that either the
 Carrier's notice to the Organization or its participation in subsequent discussions
 regarding contracting out was on any basis other than good faith.

Thus we do not find that any provision of the Agreement was violated in this instance. Accordingly, the claim must be denied in its entirety.

c_ 1 Award Nn IRl al
 a' UK All 1 .~ »~.--v.-va-a
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-37501
 07-3-02-3-585

                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


      This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders


Eh..6 ..- A -n,,1 Fn~a.,._hln fr, All. f lo;mnntlcl nnf hn annlln
 Wa0.a.0.aa a~uau aavvauvaa, w a.aaa, v.auaaaauaryo~ mv.. v., s....v.~..

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of April 2007.