OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns the diversion of work from one seniority district to another. On June 15, 1962, the Manager of Labor Relations notified the General Chairman that Wiggins No. 2 Yard, located in East St. Louis, Illinois, in Seniority District No. 34, would be closed effective August 1, 1962.

Four conferences were held between June 19 and July 22, 1962, concerning the reduction in forces in Seniority District No. 34, the creation of additional positions in Seniority Districts Nos. 36 and 38 to which some of the employes of Seniority District No. 34 were to be assigned, and the question of whether a transfer of work was involved. Although no agreement was reached, Carrier indicated that it would work out a plan for preferential treatment for the Wiggins men on the new jobs to be bulletined in Seniority Districts Nos. 36 and 38. Accordingly, in the bulletins advertising the positions at Central District Yard ('C. D. Yard) in Seniority District No. 36, and at Madison in Seniority District No. 38, Carrier permitted these employes bidding rights.

After the changes were made, the Brotherhood filed claims in behalf of those whom it believed were adversely affected as a result of the closing of Wiggins No. 2 Yard and the alleged transfer of work from one seniority district to another. These claims were declined on the grounds that they were vague and indefinite, and that there was no violation of the Agreement, inasmuch as no transfer of work took place. The Brotherhood then modified its claim with clarifications that made the list of Claimants less broad.

The Brotherhood argues that there was removal of work from one seniority district to another without agreement in violation of Rule 5 which established the seniority districts. Carrier, however, takes the position that there was a reduction in force at Wiggins No. 2 Yard because of a decline in the volume of business, rather than a transfer of work. It maintains that Wiggins District (Seniority No. 34) remained in effect, and since the district was not changed, its action was not violative of Rule 5. Moreover, it emphasizes its inherent right to have any required work performed at any location. Consequently, it argues it was within its rights in creating eight new positions at C. D. and Madison Yards to perform work which could not be absorbed by forces at these locations.

The claim has enough specificity to be considered on its merits. Numerous awards have resolved cases involving the elimination of some work in one seniority district and the performance of additional work at another seniority district in which rules similar to those at issue in this dispute were involved. A number of these, including Awards 4667, 6938, and 9193, have held that a transfer of work entailed a change in seniority districts, and, therefore, was improper without negotiation. It is significant, however, that the last named award which Brotherhood emphasizes has been reviewed by the Federal District Court in West Virginia in the case of Hanson vs. The Chesapeake Railroad 263 Fed. Supp. 56 (1964) held that there was no violation of the Agreement. The Court ruled that whether the change was a transfer of work or not since no change in seniority district was made, there was no need to negotiate with Brotherhood. In addition, other Awards such as Nos. 6655, 7420 and 9633, and Special Board of Adjustment No. 564, Award No. 4 previous to the Federal decision have denied similar claims.

As in the Federal Court decision, we find that the seniority districts under consideration in the instant dispute remained intact. Although Carrier

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement of the parties was not violated.

AWARD