6 - - 3


BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

and

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY




















Cleaner Track 5 and Yard Track I near the One Spot" in Albina Yard. The Organization responded on January 21, 1992, with a request for a conference. On February 3, 1992, the Carrier agreed to a conference. However, a conference was never held.
 On February 12, 13, and 14, 1992, the work in question was performed by an outside contractor using two of its own employees who each worked eight hours each day. ,
 The Organization has taken exception to the use of an outside contractor to perform the work in question contending that Claimants Barnett, Robinson, and Fanning were willing, capable, and available to do the job. It further argues that the Carrier never afforded the Organization a chance for a conference but instead responded to the Organization's request more than six months after the work was completed.
 The Carrier argues that the Claimants were fully employed at the time the work in question was to be performed. Furthermore, it argues that "the Union never followed up to arrange a conference date".
This Board has reviewed the extensive record in this case and we find that the Carrier gave sufficient notice of the proposed subcontracting on January 14, 1992. In that letter signed by Assistant Director Ring, the Carrier informed the Organization's General Chairman that it was going to solicit bids to perform asphalt paving work. The Organization responded to that January 14, 1992, letter on January 21, 1992, with a 31

 page letter of its own indicating that the work has "customarily and traditionally been .
53V6 3 assigned to and performed by the B&B employees". The Organization's letter then reviewed numerous awards and made its argument in opposition to the proposed subcontracting.
 Once again, contrary to the Organization's statements in its submission, the Carrier did respond to the January 21, 1992, letter on February 3, 1992. In that letter, the Carrier stated that the work being proposed "has traditionally been contracted by the Company". The Carrier contends that the rules that the Organization cited in its letters were "classification of work rules" and that those rules were "totally independent of the Scope and contracting rules". However, most importantly, the Carrier states at the end of its three-page letter, "Without waiving the foregoing, I am willing to meet with you in conference to discuss each of these notices. Please arrange to include these cases on the agenda for handling at our next conference on contracting notices. All of your questions concerning the projects can be addressed at that time".
 Consequently, this Board must find that the Organization received notice of the proposed subcontracting and it did not follow-up and meet with the Carrier to discuss the Carrier's proposed action. Therefore, the Organization cannot argue that the claim should be sustained because the Carrier violated the notice provisions.
 With respect to the work performed by the subcontractor, this Board fords that the
 Carrier has presented a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the work being assigned to
 the subcontractors on the dates in question. The records reveal that the Carrier has a
 substantial past practice of subcontracting that type of work. Also, the records submitted
 3

into evidence indicate that the Claimants were fully employed and worked eight hours on the dates in question.
 Since the Carrier served an informational notice of its intent to subcontract, and it has an established past practice of subcontracting work such as the work that was done in this case, and the fact that the Carrier did not have its own employees available to perform the work, this Board finds that the Claim must be denied. AWARD
      Claim denied.


                      P TER R.~RS

            ` Neutral aer


Carrier Member Organization Member
 DATED: DATED:

 4