' shall each be allowed fifty six hours compensation


OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 The basic facts are not disputed. The Carrier employed, without notice to the Organization, the Lytrel Company to

PLB 29600 -2- CASE N0. 217

 dismantle the old division headquarters at Chadron, Nebraska. It
 is also not disputed that the Lytrel Company was assisted by four
 Carrier employees. This Carrier crew consisted of three B & B
 employees and a machine operator - Mr. R.G. Hanson, one of the
 Claimants. They used some of the Carrier's equipment, namely a
 "little giant" crane and a 10-yard dump truck.
 When confronted with the claim, the Carrier defended its
 action of hiring Lytrel because the Carrier did not have the
 necessary equipment to perform the work. The problem with this
 defense is bi-fold. First, the Carrier never explained why this
 equipment was necessary. For instance, it never responded to the
 General Chairman's contention that the job could have been
 done with the Carrier's equipment. This contention was set forth
 in his January 13, 1987 -letter as follows:

 "The structure housing the offices of the Western Division Headquarters and Western Division Engineering Department was replaced by a new facility and the - Carrier should have known well in advance of their intent to dismantle the building, therefore, this was not an emergency and it is my understanding that there was no time limits for the building to be dismantled and accordingly, the Carrier could have accomplished the same duties by utilizing their employes and equipment." The second, and more problematic aspect of the Carrier's case is -- even assuming that their equipment was not adequate -- that they have not demonstrated that they made a -good faith effort to procure the necessary equipment on a rental basis. This obligation is set forth in the December 11, 1981 letter of
                                          AwD 153

PLB 2960 - 3 - CASE NO. 217

 understanding between the National Railway Labor Conference and the B.M.W.E. International President. It states in relevant part:
 "The carriers assure you that they will assert goodfaith efforts to reduce the incidents of subcontracting and increase the use of their maintenance of way forces to the extent practicable, including the procurement of rental equipment and operation thereof by carrier employees." A good faith effort, at a minimum, would require the Carrier to check the availability of such equipment to compare the cost of utilizing it with Carrier forces to the cost of a contractor and to make a rational assessment of these and other relevant factors. It is also noted that the Carrier would have had the opportunity to communicate such consideration in its advance notice had they given one. In view of the fact that the Carrier did not demonstrate the requisite good faith consideration to utilizing rental equipment, the claim must be sustained.

                        AWARD


      The Claim must be sustained.


                  Gil Vernon, Chairman


D. Bartholomay /G -'
 Employe Member ~~ Carrier Member

 Dated:
              Zl ~~