STATEMENT OF CLAIDi: "Claia reinstatement to employment of the

    Chesapeake end Ohio Railway Campatp by having Termination Agreement which was negotiated during rundown far Memorandum Agreement dated Jn7y 12, 1976, voided because of failure of the carrier to present all available options."


    OPINION OF HOARD: The record in this case shows that on or about

    June 10, 1976, notice was posted at Huntington, West Virginia, advising employes in that area that effective on Jtdy 12, 1976, Carrier would coordinate and reorganize certain functions and facilities on the Southern Region, which included Huntington., West Virginia.


    On July 8, 1976, representatives of the carrier and the Organization visited RtAtiagtan, West Virginia, where they set with the several individuals who were to be affected by the coordination to explain the optima which were available to each and to determine their elections under the application of the duly 12,.1976 Memorandum Agreement. Claimant was interviewed an July 8, 1976 and was advised that she could either: (1) exercise her seniority and acquire rate protection under the prcv'1.sions-af-the-Memorandum-Agreement.. effective-July-I2,.._ _-

1976; or (2) elect a separation allowance and ash her rights
 _viWthe_canier,_.C1a1u%u*.sigxd an-election form accepting separation
 s alloranct.

    In the submissions to this Hoard, petitioner alleges that information was withheld from her an July 8, 1976, which information would have affected her decision. She further alleges that she was given only a "a matter of minutes" to make her decision.


    The Board bas studied the entire record and fails to find &my probative evidence to stxppart petitioner's allegations. All information relative to the coordination was made available either by bulletin notice or at the July 8, 1976 interview. There is nothing

Award Number 22161
 Docket Humber D6-22222

 Page 2

 in the record to suggest that claimant was denied the right to raise any qnesticns which she sight have had relative to the coordination. She ma afforded the right to question both Carrier and Organization representatives. In short, there is since nothing is this record to indicate that any of the provisions of the Hemorandua Agreement effective .lay 12, 1976 was violated or that claimant was in any way pressured into opting for separation allowance.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whale record and a71 the evidence, finds and holds:


That the parties waived oral. hearing;

 mat the Carrier and the Implayes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Emplaves 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

 'mat the Agreement was not violated.

 A ii A & D
Claim denied.

 AT=?: z~- /*· PA4444--r
        Executive Secretary


SATIl1KAT. RAILROO ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


                              Dated at Chicago, T13nois, this 31st


date of July 1978.