(Brotherhood of Railroad Sigoalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Sigaalmm on the Erie Lackawanna Railway Company:

 On behalf of T. L. Casperson for moving expenses under Article VIII of the November 16, 1971 National Agreement, Mediation Case No. A-8811.

OPIIRG· Of HOARD: Claimant had established seniority as an Assistant
 Signal Maintainer and was working as a Signal Helper with headquarters at Ashland, Ohio. Carrier bulletined a position as signal helper at Urbana, Ohio. Several days later Carrier re-bulletined the position, "corrected", and noted on the corrected bulletin that it was re-advertised "account error in title of position". The newly advertised title was that of Assistant Signal Maintainer rather than Maintainer Helper.

 Claimant was then faced with the choice of bidding the assistant maintainer position or losing the seniority he had established in that classification. He chose to bid the position and as a result his headquarters moved a distance in ex nearer to the new headquarters point and submitted a moving expense report to Carrier. The claim is for the moving expenses provided by Article VIII of the November 16, 1971. National Agreement which read.:





Carrier has denied the claim on the grounds that changing the position at Urbane from the maintainer helper classification to the assistant signal maintainer clas or organizational change . . . " Carrier has also denied that Claimant was required to move his residence in connection with reporting to a new headquarters point.

 S.B.A. No. 605, which has issued many awards in connection with Article VIII, has held that the abolishment of a position is not change falling within the ambit of Article VII:. Here we have, not the abolishment of a position, but the c from one classification to another. While Carrier has insisted that such a change is not an organizational change, within the meaning of Article VIII, the Board has not been directed to any decision supporting that opinion. Clearly, the change involved in this case is not of large moment in the scheme of things. It is, however, an organizational change, since the permanent table of organization, or stated differently, the manning, of Carrier's signal forces is not the same as it was prior to the change.

 The cases have held that the fact that a headquarters point is moved more than 30 miles is not, in and of itself, proof that the employs was required to move his residence. Each case is subject to review and determination that a move was necessary. Here the distance involved, as previously stated, was in excess of 100 miles. In a recent decision (No. 398), S.B.A. 605 has held that moving the headquarters.point a distance of 100 miles was prima facie proof that it was necessary for the employs to move his residence. Given that holding and the distance Claimant's headquarters point moved it follows that movement of his residence was required.

 Carrier has asserted that Claimant was not required to bid on the assistant maintainer position and that he could have remained as a maintainer helper. The Agreement, of course, provides that his failure to bid on the assistant maintainer position would have resulted in the lose of the seniority that he had accumulated in that classification. Although Carrier believes that Claimant was engaged in a voluntary exercise of his seniority, the Board does not agree. The choice between bidding the position and the loss of seniori Agreement provision which would have stripped him of his accumulated seniority should he have failed if Carrier had specifically directed a move and is a change in position which contemplates the application of the provisions of Article VIII.

        FIImIB08: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;

                    Award Humber 21180 page 3

                    Docket Humber SG-20981


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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained,


                          lUTIAIAL RAILROAD AWOSTKW HOARD

                          $y Order of Third Division


ATT&ST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1976.