PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


                          and


          CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore and Ohio 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 (Bankhead Welders) to make field welds

      between Mile Posts BF 270.7 and 311.0 on the Baltimore

      Service Lane from September 8 through October 7, 1998

      [System Files G055508399/12(99-0187) and G055508299/12(99

      0186) BOR].


      2. The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier

      failed to give the General chairman advance written

      notice of its intent to contract out the work.


      3. As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts

      (1) and/or (2) above, Welder M. D. Murtaugh and Welder

      Helper D. A. Wagner shall each be allowed three hundred

      forty (340) hours' pay at their respective straight time

      rates.


FINDINGS:

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

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

      2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 Addendum 13 to the Memorandum of Agreement, dated June 13, 1978, provides, in pertinent part, that:

          1. In the event the Carrier decides that in


                            1

                                              SB A mo

                                              Awd 130


      light of the criteria specified in Paragraph (b)5.(a) of the Scope Rule of the Schedule Agreement it is necessary to contract work of a type currently performed by the employees coming under the Scheduled Maintenance of Way Agreement, it shall give the General Chairman notice of intent to contract and the reasons therefor, together with supporting data. Advance notice shall not be required concerning minor transactions except as provided in Attachment "A" of this Agreement.


A careful review of the record indicates that the Carrier failed to notify the organization about the disputed work. The Carrier provided a letter, August 5, 1998, about the Carrier's plans to contract out certain work. The August 5, 1998 letter, however, did not cover the disputed work. In particular, the August 5, 1998 letter covered work at a different location than the disputed work.

 The Carrier's failure to provide advance notice to the organization about the disputed work at the actual location of the disputed work therefore did not constitute adequate, effective, or sufficient notice within the requirements of Addendum 13 of the Agreement.

 The record indicates that the outside forces subsequently performed the disputed work. The disputed work constituted scope covered work. The Carrier therefore had an affirmative obligation to provide advance notice to the Organization about the disputed work. The Carrier failed to do so. As a result, the record proves that the Carrier violated the Agreement in this matter.

 AWARD:

 The Claim is sustained in accordance with the opinion of the Board. The Carrier shall make the Award effective on or before 60 days following the date of this Award.

R bert L. Douq1as

Chairman and Neutral Member


nald ~?.\ Bart

Employee\Xember


Dated: 3 Y A

 Mark D. Selbert Carrier Member