(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company that:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) has violated/or failed to apply the provisions of Article VIII of Mediation Agreement Case No. A-881 Railroad Signalmen dated November 16, 1971, also the provisions of Rule 56 of the Current Schedule Agreement.

 (b) Mr. T. L. Spangler be allowed the benefits provided by Article VIII of Mediation Agreement of November 16, 1971, also the benefits provided by Rule 56 of t
SIG 176-2)
 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts out of which the dispute arose are basic-
 ally uncontested. Carrier had since 1969 maintained at Chemult, Oregon a mobile trailer for use as headquarters by Signal Gang 22, a one-man gang consisting of a Leading Signalman, one C. G. Mowdy. In November 1972 Carrier issued bulletins changing the headquarters of Gang 22 from the trailer to a fixed headquarters (a toolhouse). Carrier abolished and reestablished the Leading Signalmen's position at Chemult to reflect this change. Mowdy exercised his seniority rights in such a way as to initiate a chain reaction of displacements which finally reached Claimant, a Signalman on Signal Gang No. 25 at Klamath Falls, Oregon. The net result of the chain of displacem in this transaction, ended up bidding into the Leading Signalman position on Gang 22 at Chemult, Oregon. Thereafter, Claimant moved his residence from Klamath Falls to Chemult and then filed the instant claim alleging violation of Article VIII of the Mediation Agreement of November 16, 1971
 ("Changes of Residence Due to Technological, Operational or Organizational Changes") and Rule 56 of the controlling Signalmen's Agreement.

 Analysis of the facts in this case shows a change from trailer headquarters to a fixed headquarters at the place where the trailer was parked. Thereafter, the employee previously assigned to the trailer voluntarily choose not to stay at that headquarters but exercised his contractual rights to displace


judgement the claim under Article VIII cannot be sustained for two reasons: 1) The foregoing set of facts simply does not constitute "technological, operational or organizational change requiring an employee to transfer or move" within the clear language of the Mediation Agreement, and 2) The causi trailer to fixed headquarters and the eventual displacement and move of Claimant three bumps later is just too tenuous to support the claim.

 Although the claim is at least nominally premised upon Rule 56, as well as Article VIII, the record shows that Petitioner relies almost exclusively upon the latter provision. Aside from bare assertions the record is devoid of evidence to support allegations of a Rule 56 violation. If proper request for su denied herein we might have a different case under Rule 56. But on the instant record the claim in this regard must be denied for lack of proof.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and








ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1976.