(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned outside forces (Firestone) to perform Maintenance of Way work (plow snow) on BRC (Belt Railway of Chicago) property on December 6 and 16, 2008 and continuing (System File B-0904B101).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to give the General Chairman proper advance notice in writing of its intention to contract out the work in question or make a good-faith effort to reach an understanding in accordance with Rule 4.

(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Claimants A. Hernandez and J. Romanowski shall now each be compensated for six (6) hours at their respective straight time rates of pay and for ten (10) hours at their respective time and one-half rates of pay for the hours expended by the outside forces in the performance of the aforesaid work on December 6 and 16, 2008 and they shall be compensated at their respective and applicable rates of pay for

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.

It is undisputed that the Carrier utilized an outside contractor (Firestone) on December 6 and 16, 2008, for the purpose of removing snow from parking lots on its property. Two employees of Firestone performed this work for six hours each on December 6 and for ten hours each on December 16. The Organization filed this claim on behalf of two covered employees for the hours worked by the contractor's employees.

The Organization argues that the work of plowing and clearing snow from parking lots has routinely and customarily been performed by covered employees. It asserts the Carrier made no attempt to assign the Claimants to perform this work, nor did it provide the General Chairman with advance notice of its intent to contract out the work. It contends the Carrier thus violated Rule 4 of the Agreement, which reads as follows:

"We conclude that the record fails to establish a notice violation for two independent reasons. First, a rule of reason in the application of labor agreements is implied along with an obligation to act in good faith. While many, if not most, kinds of work can be planned and scheduled far in advance, recovery work made necessary by severe weather events usually cannot. The record does not establish that the Carrier had sufficient advance notice of the heavy snowfall so as to be able to provide the requisite written notice. Given the impossibility of compliance with Rule 4 under these circumstances, common sense requires that the lack of notice must be excused.

any objection by the Organization. Nothinp, in the record supeests

"Although the record developed by the parties on the property jousted over whether an emergency existed and, if so, how long it lasted, the record shows that the pivotal issue in this dispute is whether the type of snow removal work in question is covered by the scope of the Agreement. No specific reservation of work language was cited to identify scope coverage. In the alternative, careful examination of the record does not reveal any actual evidence that BMWE-represented employees have performed the work in question in response to a significant weather event without augmentation on a historical, customary, and traditional basis. Such evidence is necessary to establish scope coverage in the absence of explicit reservation of work language in the Agreement."

Organization has not established that snow removal work of this nature is covered by the scope of the Agreement, regardless of the depth of the snow. Accordingly, we do not find that the Agreement was violated.

AWARD