PARTIES ) Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Does the transferring of any work per
 formed by employees covered by the
 Linemen's Agreement (who are employees
 represented by the Transportation
 Communication Employees Union) to
 employees not covered by that Agreement
 constitute a violation of Article III,
 Section 1? (Carrier File B-279-883
 cc 279-406).
 2. Did Carrier violate the Telegraphers'
 Linemen Agreement when it negotiated
 the work of line construction to an
 outside contractor without first fol
 lowing the procedures set forth in
 Article III, Sections 1 and 2?

 OPINION
 OF BOAR2s The Organization has also filed with the Third Divi-.
 sion its claim stated in the second Question that Carrier
 improperly contracted out work. That question cannot
 properly come before this Committee since it concerns an alleged
 violation of the Linemen Agreement. The jurisdiction of the Com
 mittee is restricted to the February 7, 1965, Agreement.

 Article III of the February 7 Agreement in any case is not a provision setting forth employee rights and benefits. Its purpose is to endow carriers with the right to effectuate transfers that might otherwise be forbidden by schedule agreements. Article III does not require carriers to enter into implementing agreements. It enables them to do so as a means of effecting transfers.

 If the transferring of work is improper, the February 7 Acreemant :.s not v_olated. only when protected em,plo,ees are denied t:iat Agreemcnt's guaranteermas :.t be involved. In. otaer words, what the Organization must show this Committee s how the fnbruarv 7 Agreement's benefits were denied protected employees, and it has not done so in this case.

As it was present?d, the first Question also con
 certs tine r:cjht to contract, _iurely and simply. So far as tile
 February 7 Acjreement Ls concerned, Carrier can transfer work, low
 contract out or take any other steps it chooses, ~. . . :st
 provide the benefits of that Agreement to protected employees.
 T:ius the Organization's objection to Carrier's action can be
 processe~l only i!nder the sc~ierlule agreement, for contracting
 out does not violate the February 7 Agreement, which contains
 either scooe rules nor seniority rules.
 A W A 2 D

          1. The answer to Question No. 1 is No.


            2. The Committee is without jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of the schedule agreement.


See also, Section 13, Committee Decisions in Docket Nos. 48, 61, 78, and 98.
 For similar results, see SBA No. 605, Award Nos. 278, 400, and Interpretation
 Award No. 355. Based upon all of the foregoing, therefore, we find that
 Question A must be answered in the negative.
 Turning to the remaining Questions at Issue, and the various positions low
 urged by the Organization in handling on the properties, we have no hesitancy
 in finding that the Notice of Coordination served by the Carriers on April 2,
 1980 (Attachment A hereto) complied with the requirements of Section 4 of the
 WJPA. Accordingly, Question B must be answered in the affirmative.
 With respect to Question C, no where on the record before us has the
 organization demonstrated any way in which the Implementing Agreement proposed
 by Carriers on June 11, 1980 failed to comply with the criteria set fLrth in
 Section 5, or any other provisions, of the WJPA or the Agreement of
 February 7, 1965. Indeed, the record appears to support Carriers' position
 that the Implementing Agreement proposed on June 11, 1980 meets or exceeds
 r
 the requirements of the WJPA. BRAC urged at the Board hearing that Carriers did not "bargain in good faith" with respect to this Implementing Agreement and that the proposed creation of the "consolidated Data Processing Centers" is a not a "coordination" within the meaning of that term in the WJPA. Neither of those belated de novo theories find support in the evidence of record and neither constitutes a bar to the adoption of the Implementing Agreement essentially as proposed by Carrier on June 11, 1980. The Organization urges that it was "justified" in seeking certain additional improvements in the proposed Implementing Agreement, specifically a provision to amend the Scope Rule coverage of the controlling Clerks Agreements with the involved Carriers. We do not express or apply any opinion or value judgement as to the "justification", propriety or general worthiness of such proposals. Such questions likely are beyond the realm of our competence and without doubt are beyond the reach of our jurisdiction. Whatever the merits of such proposals, we do not have the authority to engraft upon an Implementing Agreement which otherwise meets the requirements of Section 5 of the WJPA such additional conditions. See Section 13, Committee Decisions, Docket Nos. 90, 119 and 161. As noted in Award 230 of this Board supra, our authority is limited to reviewing the application and interpretation of the Agreement of February 7, 1965 and the WJPA to the extent therein incorporated. Due to the passage of time since June 1980, we strongly recommend that Section 3 of the proposed Implementing Agreement of June 11, 1980 be amended and updated so that the positions and incumbents referenced in Exhibit A of that Implementing Agreement are provided applicable protection for a five (5) year period from the effective date of the Agreement. With these amendments we are compelled to answer Question C in the affirmative.
                      AWARD


      1) The answer to Question A is No.


      2) The answer to Question B is Yes.

3) With the recommended revision and updating of Section 3 and Exhibit A, referenced herein, the answer to Question C is Yes.
 G) The answer to Question D is that the reference to "January 1, 1986" in Section 3 must be amended so as to provide five (5) years protection from the effective date of the Implementing Agreement; and Exhibit A thereto must be amended to reflect the positions and incumbents as of the effective date of said Agreement.

 Dana E. Eischen,

 Date: January 10, 1983
                                          Award No. ')

                                                    , ./c)

                                          Case No. TCU-82-11


                  SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST-1,T_v'T NO. 605


      PARTIES ) Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

      TO THE ) and

      DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union


QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Does the transferring of any work per
 formed by employees covered by the
 . Linemen's Agreement (who are employees
 represented by the Transportation
 Communication Employees Union) to
 employees not covered by that Agreement
 constitute a violation of Article III,
 Section 1? (Carrier File B-279-883
 cc 279-406).
 2. Did Carrier violate the Telegraphers'
 Linemen Agreement when it negotiated
 the work of line construction to an
 outside contractor without first fol
 lowing the procedures set forth in
 Article III, Sections 1 and 2?

      OPINION

      OF BOARD: The Organization has also filed with the Third Divi

      sion its claim stated in the second Question that Carrier

      improperly contracted out work. That question cannot

      properly come before this Committee since it concerns an alleged

      violation of the Linemen Agreement. The jurisdiction of the Com

      mittee is restricted to the February 7, 1965, Agreement.


      Article III of the February 7 Agreement in any case is not a provision setting fort:, employee rig:its and benefits. Its purpose is to endo%:i carriers wit'·. the right to effectuate transfers that mig:it otzerwise be forbidden by schedule agreements. Article III does not reauire carriers to enter into implementing agreements. It enables them to do so as a means of effect_ng transfers.

                                      Award 1vqo.1z30

                                      Case No. TCU-82 ;i


If the transferring of work is improper, the February 7 Agreement is not violated. Only when protected employees are denied that. Agreement's guarantees may it be invoked. In other words, what the Organization riust show this Committee is how the February 7 Agree.;ent's benefits were denied protected employees, and it has not done so in this case.

 As it was presented, the first Question also concerns t,)e right to contract, purely and sirmply. So far as the February 7 Agreement is concerned, carrier can trans °er work, contract out or ta?ce any other steps it chooses, but it must provide the benefits of that A~,,reement to protected employees. Thus the Organization's objection to Ca?=%er's action can be processed only under the schedule agreement, for contracting out does not violate the February 7 Agreement, which contains neither scope rules nor seniority rules.

                        A V'7 A n, D


            1. The ans:·er to Question No. 1 is No.


              2. The Committee is without jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of the schedule agreement.


                          i ton Friea:,ian

                          Neutral Member


Washington, D. C. November /6, 1970

                            _2_