The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Carrier announced on May 20, 1991 that four Laborer positions would be abolished at Wenatchee, Washington. Three of these laborers exercised seniority at other locations, displacing three other Laborers. The Organization contends that the job abolishments were a direct result of a "change in operations" by the Carrier in that all locomotive power changes at Wenatchee were to be discontinued and the fueling of locomotives was discontinued. The Organization claims the "discontinued work" was transferred to Spokane, Seattle and Everett, Washington.
Under these circumstances, the Organization seeks protective benefits for the Claimants under Article 1, Section ~, of the September 25, 1964 Agreement, which reads as follows:
The Carrier fully concedes that it stopped fueling locomotives at Wenatchee. The Carrier states that, prior to the March 16, 1991 force reduction, it fueled all locomotives at both Seattle and Spokane and then "topped off" the fuel tanks at Wenatachee. The Carrier undertook a six-month study and determined that the relatively small fuel additions at Wenatchee (an average of 872 gallons) was no longer necessary. Thus, it decided simply to cease this operation at Wenatchee.
The Organization argues that the Claimants were placed in a worse condition because of the Carrier's operations involving "... abandonment, discontinuance for 6 months or more, or consolidation of facilities or service, or portions thereof."
The Organization made other assertions as to "contracting out" of fuel supply for locomotives, but the Carrier offered evidence that this did not occur at Wenatchee.
The Board finds that discontinuance of a "topping off" operation does not constitute a transfer of work. No operation was moved from one location to another. As to abandonment, there is no question that some operations continue at Wenatchee. Given these circumstances, there is no basis to find the Claimants are eligible for protective benefits on the basis of the May 1991 change of status.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.