devoid of any evidence that the outside forces utilized special tools or materials unavailable to Carrier forces to accomplish this ordinary B&B work.

In addition, the Organization argues that the Carrier did not engage in meaningful, good faith discussions concerning the utilization of Carrier forces to perform the subcontracting work. On the contrary, the Organization asserts that the Carrier had a plan to contract out the work before meeting with the Organization in conference. To the Organization, the conference was nothing more than a sham, intended to give the illusion of compliance with the contracting Rule. For these reasons, the Organization submits that the claim must be sustained.

The Carrier contends that there was no violation of the Agreement. It submits that proper advance notice was provided and a conference was held. The Carrier submits that the Claimants were fully employed, unavailable, and not qualified to perform the disputed work. In addition, the Carrier asserts that the work is not exclusive to the BMWE and there is a past practice of utilizing contractors.

After careful study of the lengthy explications provided by the parties, the Board finds that the Organization has not proven that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it contracted out the interior remodeling work at the Hastings and Winona depots.

The language contained in the Note to Rule 1, the Scope Rule, sets forth the notice and conferencing requirements with regard to the contracting out of work within the scope of the Agreement. When the parties meet in conference, they are required to "make a good faith attempt to reach an understanding concerning said contracting, but if no understanding is reached the Carrier may nevertheless proceed with said contracting . . ." subject to the Organization's right to protest by filing a claim. Appendix I reaffirms the parties' good faith obligations in subcontracting cases.

The Organization's assertion that the Carrier contracted out the work before meeting with the Organization in conference was denied by the Carrier and not substantiated by the Organization. Assertions are not evidence. In the absence of probative evidence to support the claim that the contracting out decision was a "fait accompli" when the parties met in conference, the Board rejects the Organization's argument that the conference was a mere pretense.

The Organization has not advanced any other reason which would persuade the Board that the Carrier lacked good faith in the instant case. We find that the Organization received notice, the matter was conferenced, and the Organization had an opportunity to respond to the Carrier's position. It is true that the Carrier determined that it was unable to utilize BMWE-represented forces, but the mere fact of disagreement with the Organization on that point does not establish bad faith or failure to adhere to the requirements of Rule 1, the Scope Rule, or Appendix I. The Carrier presented valid reasons for contracting out the work at issue. Although some of the work at issue might have been within the capabilities of the Claimants, there was evidence that the Carrier has contracted out this type of work in the past. Moreover, the Organization has not shown that the Claimants, who were fully employed, were denied work opportunities as a result of the Carrier's determination. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Organization has not shown that the Carrier was in violation of the Agreement when it contracted out remodeling work at the two depots.

AWARD