This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

In and around April 1990, the Carrier discontinued a train which terminated at Baton Rouge and established a train running through Baton Rouge to Geismar. At the same time, several road switchers were abolished, some operating out of Geismar and some out of Baton Rouge.

The Organization described these changes as follows:

"The changes in the Carriers' operations at Baton Rouge resulted in approximately 150 less diesel locomotives being inspected, serviced, maintained and repaired each month by the 6 machinists at that location. Obviously, such a transfer of work adversely affected those machinists because it represented approximately 60°s of the work performed by the machinists at that location."

The Carrier established a Machinist position at Geismar by bulletin dated May 10, 1990, but abolished it shortly thereafter on May 24, 1990.

On May 29-30, 1990, the two Claimants, Machinists at Baton Rouge, were furloughed when the Machinist force at Baton Rouge was reduced from six to four employees. Thereafter, this claim was initiated on their behalf to seek coverage under the September 25, 1964 Agreement as to the specified 60-day notice and protective benefits, based on the application of Section 2 involving,transfer of work" and "consolidation of services."

The Carrier contends that the reduction of train services did not constitute a substantive "transfer" of work, as evidenced by the fact that no Machinists are employed at Geismar.

The Board concludes that there is no showing that the furlough of the two Claimants was caused by transferring their work to another location. The force reduction was the more likely consequence of the reduced number of trains.

95-2-93-2-131