PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



          Union Pacific Railroad Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

          1. The Agreement was violated when the

          Carrier assigned outside forces (Flamingo

          Trucking) to perform Maintenance of Way work

          (unload and transport ballast) between Mile

          Posts 37.25 and 38.60 on the Marysville

          Subdivision on the Kansas Division on June 11

          and 15, 1998 (System File W-9852

          166/11511594).


          2. The Agreement was further violated when

          the Carrier failed to furnish the General

          Chairman with a proper advance written notice

          of its intention to contract out said work

          and failed to make a good-faith effort to

          reduce the incidence of contracting out scope

          covered work and increase the use of its

          Maintenance of Way forces as required by Rule

          52 and the December 11, 1981 Letter of

          Understanding.


          3. As a consequence of the violations

          referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above,

          Eastern District Roadway Equipment Operators

          A. E. Emperley, L. J. Doebele, Jr. and Kansas

          Division Group 15 Truck Drivers T. W.

          Brummett and L. B. Brumbaugh shall now each

          be compensated for an equal proportionate

          share of the total number of man-hours

          expended by the outside forces in the

          performance of the work in question at their

          respective Groups 19 and 15 straight time

          rates and time and one-half rates of pay.


                            1

                                              PI -8

                                              ~y3 0

                                              Rod ~~

FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

      2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 A careful review of the record indicates that the Carrier provided a 15-day notice to the Organization, in a letter dated July 8, 1997, concerning the Carrier's intent to solicit bids to contract certain future work. The notice to the organization provided the following relevant information about the work:

      Specific Work: provide all labor, equipment and materials for grading, culvert extensions, subballast and related work for construction for two universal crossover ties.


(Attachment No. 1 to Employes' Exhibit A-5 and Carrier's Exhibit B-1.) The present dispute involves the unloading and transporting of ballast by the outside forces subsequently retained by the Carrier. The movement of ballast, however, in this particular project constituted "related work" within the meaning of the 15-day notice. The record omits any evidence of bad faith by the Carrier in the issuance of the 15-day notice or during the actual conference between the representatives of the parties. Under these special circumstances, the Carrier therefore did not violate the Agreement.

 AWARD:

 The Claim is denied in accordance with the Opinion of the Board.

R bert L. D glas

Chairman and Neutral Member


D Bartholo D. A. Ring
 Emp yee Me er Carrier Mem er

 Dated:

                            2