(I) The cement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Georgetown Rail Equipment Company) to perform Maintenance of Way work (operate trackhoe to pickup material and general clearing of right of way) on the Springfield Division beginning tech 5, 2001 and continuing instead of furloughed employe M. Taylor [System File B-2895-1/12-01-014'7 (MW) SLF].

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to provide the General Chairman with a proper notice of its intent to contract out said work or make a good-faith effort to reduce the incidence of subcontracting and increase the use of its

December 11, 1981 Letter of Agreement.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or(2) above, Claimant M. Taylor shall now be compensated at his applicable rate of pay for all hours, including overtime hours worked by the contract operator in the performance of the aforesaid work beginning March 5, 2001 and continuing:'

Form 1 Page 2

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.

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

The Organization maintains that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to give notice to the Organization of contracted work. The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier used a contractor to perform material pickup and right-of-way cleanup. The Carrier responds that the notice was proper and that the contracting did not violate the Agreement.

On December 19, 2000, the Carrier notified the Organization that it planned to utilize a contractor to operate four Georgetown Slot Machines to load and unload materials throughout the Carrier's system. On January 3, 2001, the Organization sent the Carrier a letter requesting a conference about the contracting. In the letter, the Organization stated that the notice "is not in compliance with the obligations contained in the various agreements in effect." A conference was held on February 12, 2001. On February 13, the Carrier sent the Organization a letter that included a list of Divisions where the Georgetown Slot Machine and other contracted equipment would be used in

following contract work. Obviously, these schedules are subject to change as the work season progresses." The Springfield Subdivision was not on the list.

On May 1, 2001, the Organization notified the Carrier that the Georgetown Slot Machine was used on the Springfield Division beginning on March 5. The General Chairman stated that an improper notice was provided for the contractor work on the Springfield Division. The Claimant was on furlough from December 15, 2000 to April 2, 2001.

Form 1 Page 3

The Carrier contends that the Organization failed to allege that the work at issue is scope covered and the claim must therefore be denied. Further, even if the Organization had property stated a claim, the Georgetown Slot Machine work is not scope covered work, it was performed with specialized equipment not available for lease or rental by the Carrier and proper notice of the system-wide contracting was provided and a conference was held. The Organization further maintains that the failure to provide notice that the Georgetown Slot Machine work would be performed on the Springfield Division indicates that the Carrier did not act with the necessary good faith. Improper notice renders the Organization unable to rely on the notice when requesting and holding a conference on the contracting issue

The Board carefully reviewed the record evidence and the parties' arguments. Initially, we rind that the claim as originally presented contains no defect warranting dismissal. The Organization identified the contracting issue with sufficient specificity that the Carrier was put on notice of the nature of the claim, and could investigate and respond to the claim.

that the claim be sustained. The initial notice did not contain any locations for the work. The correspondence following the conference contained locations for the contracted work. Although the Springfield District was not included in the correspondence, the list was identified as tentative and the work locations subject to change. The Board finds that the notice provided by the Carrier in the instant case was sufficient to meet its obligations under the parties' Agreement. The December notice provided the Organization sufficient specificity to put it on notice that the work might be reserved to BMWE-represented employees and the Organization could request a conference. Indeed, the Organization requested a conference about the work and had that conference on February 12. Further, as discussed below, the Carrier did not violate the Agreement when it contracted the work done by the Georgetown Slot Machine.

The Board notes that a similar issue has been decided in Third Division Awards 36502 through 3650? and the Awards cited therein. Third Division Awards 36502 through 3650? addressed the Carrier's use of a contractor to have track materials loaded and unloaded with a patented "cartopper" material handler that the Carrier did not own. In those Awards, the Board found that:

AWARD