PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


                          and


          CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

      1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and

      refused to assign a B&B employe to a foreman inspector

      position when an outside concern was used to pave a new

      road, etc., at the Huntington Shops in Huntington West

      Virginia, on November 14, 15 and 16, 1994 [System Files C

      TC-5911-B&8/12(95-148) and C-TC-5913-B&Bj12 (95-0149) COS].


      2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part

      (1) above, B&B employes M. Dial, C. Perry, J. Comer and I.

      Wiley shall each receive an equal proportionate share of the

      one hundred thirty-six (136) hours expended on November 14,

      15 and 16, 1994 at the B&B foreman inspector's rate of pay.


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.


This dispute involves the performance of certain paving work on a new road by outside forces and the failure of the Carrier to assign the Claimants to serve as inspectors during the performance of such work.

 Rule 83(b) provides, in pertinent part, that:

          Where maintenance work coming under the provisions of this agreement which has

customarily been performed by employees of

 lway company is let to contract, the

 railway company will plane an extra force foreman in charge of the work if the contracted work is roadway or track work. If the contracted work is bridges and structures work, a B&B foreman will be assigned with the contract force if the job is such as would justify assignment of a foreman if the railway company were doing the work with its own forces.

 The first claim indicates that the alleged violation relates to the failure of the Carrier to assign the Claimants to perform inspection work. As a result, the present dispute does not concern the validity of the determination of the Carrier to use outside forces to perform the paving work.

 Rule 83(b) initially requires a finding of whether the members of the bargaining unit customarily performed new paving work. The record omits any credible evidence that members of the bargaining unit customarily performed new paving work. In the absence of such credible evidence in the present case, the Organization perforce failed to prove that Rule 83(b) required the Carrier to assign the Claimants to serve as inspectors.

 Board.

 ~onald Bartholomrra
 EmployeeMember

 Dated:
        °°''~ ~.


The Claim is denied in accordance with the Opinion of the

Robert L. Douglas

Chairman and Neutral Member


Patricia A. Madden Carrier Member