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 (Amrail

          Company) to perform Maintenance of Way work

          (clean right of way of scrap, old rail and

          general cleanup work) between Mile Posts 250

          and 321 on the La Grande Subdivision

          commencing August 10, 1998 and continuing

          (System File J-9852-71/1162218).


          2. The Agreement was further violated when

          the Carrier failed to furnish the General

          Chairman with proper advance written notice

          of its intention to contract out said work

          and failed to make a good-faith attempt to

          reach an understanding concerning said

          contracting as required by Rule 52(a).


          3. As a consequence of the violations

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

          System Gang Foreman J. S. Richins, System

          Roadway Equipment Operator K. S. Robins,

          Welder S. M. Spray and System Gang Laborers

          C. L. Delong and B. M. Blaylock '*** must

          each be allowed at his applicable rate a

          proportionate share of the total hours, both

          straight and overtime hours worked by the

          contractor doing the work claimed as

          compensation for loss of work opportunity

          suffered starting on August 10, 1998,

          continuing until such time as the contractor

          employes are removed from the property as the

          work claim is considered continuous.

          Additionally, in an effort to make Claimants

          whole for all losses suffered, we are also

          claiming that the Carrier must treat


                          1

Pt l9 6430 Awd

 Claimants as employes who rendered service on the days claimed qualifying them for vacation credit days, railroad retirement credits, insurance coverage and any and all other benefits entitlement accrued as if they had preformed (sic) the work claimed."

 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 present dispute involves an alleged "as is, where is" transaction. The present record substantiates that the Carrier did not retain the relevant material. As a result, an "as is, where is" transaction occurred and the Carrier did not violate the collective bargaining agreement by permitting the outside vendor to send outside forces to retrieve the material.

 AWARD:

 The Claim is denied.

 D Bartholoma~
 Emp yee Me er

 Dated:

 R bert L. D gl s
 Chairman and Neutral Member

a-a IL

D. A. Ring
 Carrier Memb
            3