(Brotherhood of ?z`? rcad Sig.aLmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE
                (Me Western Pacific Pzilr;zd Ccr-l,--_^y


STAM·iEENT vi CTD·1: "Claim ef the C-enera1 Co-miiittee of the .. Brotherhood
 " of railrcad Sigm-almer on the Western Pacific
 Pail.-cad Ccaary that:
(a) The Western Pacific P272Tcad 0-c_.:=any violated P-nd/C-^ refused to CC.mmi_Oly with the PrOV'isims of Article Vill of the National Mediation Angree=--t dated No'de=ber lE, 197,

        (b) ·tr. ,Ta:Es D. B.rJd be ce-^cersated in accordance n^r-:: t^?

            .

JrCYisiCn3 C: AztiCIE VI, _T Of the :'~diaviC_n nor°_e^_'Ent dated -'';O':e~2r 10-.
 nm
      `'pr rt:in v o- z0 10 n n t amount y l_, :4~..n~ e..~e::.:_s as c_:.i._ed i.. he cuz_ o x78.37 ^.~.us

tra: Sfer aiLC:mnce of ·~.vO, total amount 0-l' F,73.37, account recll:urad
 by Crgaai=anon a..;. charges made by Carrier to move his residence from
 Crovi11l.e, Califemia to Sacr-onto, CaIi°ornia."
        /Carrier file: n-Case No. 10-740-1975-33SJ


    T-

Z-ON -7 :.Ca=3M:° C-l31"3 herein ariseS=C '^ t:°_ °°_ .~ C1ai'_c.^~
                origLm°.,-l_ly a _TCSS :'~aintainer at C,2rrier'3 Crovil.e,

California Sigral chomm -.:denqe. t the fo~ I Cio rq -O'Je~ e:: ~S C:' nosiiloa and
 location: (1) because of aboli3=ent of Test 'CrE'_"?n _i^,CSitloil a.'. t'12e
 y1. ,- r,
 Orovi11.e Signal ,.off, the herder of shat mcsitic:: azarcised his _6'.^.~
 to displace Cla~
            i:.axa f=cm the ratters job e_' TCS :'aintainer at

            ids thatcat;.z'er thereafter ?nri. +ed -for -ening^s for lest

_. =) Carry(. ~ _ _ v
 For 2=3 and three $ig^al-man Positions at :3 Sacramento, California
 1OCaticn aoilt 80 .m-lies from CroY'Me (3j Claimnt bid for one of the
 Sioalr.~^. orenings at sacrsmeezto (Organizations's statement is
 i'S.dismuzed the this vdas the position '.'leer °sT, to CrC''e- l-ae that iris
 seniority would re_=.,~t rim to obtain ~. (4) Cla_:a^t's bid was accemted
 and ^e rCVed t0- Sacr=em-C to work ''^ere au' a ~i'y~^.'a,..'~.n (t2.`C_^aTJ)
          V.

          ~rf.~Y seeks arvJ caa Carrye'° CvvV.W4_vif at:vif for .~t..~nt 1. 1.y Jr _ W W4_ C_ hls

WCS3nz exz°nses to Sec=a-nto amC'3n=fg to a total of SS478.37 or, the
 basis 0-2' Artiml9 T>1 of the November 15, 1971 A,ree:,ent bet:-/een the
 Oarties which _~rC'r=a°_s for such comneasation, "Wren 2 Carrier i2kes 2
 tachnological, operational, or orgganizatticiafr 0-::2.^.7e re:'11:3..'.~ a.'1
 employe to transfer to a new -moL.t of em^p1Cy-ent requiring him t0-
                  Award =:umber 221;1 Page 2

                  Docket Number SG-22220


move his residence..." for mere than 30 miles from his former re-porting VO~at.

 CSganizaticn contends that Claimant's change of working site was the result of Carrier raving moved a position t0 a new haadC_uarters point; as such, it comes within the "technological, operational or organizational" change criteria of Article VIII for which moving costs must be subsidized by Carrier. In suzport of its position, Orbanizaticn regards as significant the fact that in September 1975, Carrier abolished four positions at places other than Sacramento r,One TCS Mai:
 tainer at Sacramento, one Signa--_ n at Hayward and two Sign a1:.en at Or07ille), then with the Same notice announcing the fi~lin$ Of four vacancies at Sacramento, additionally abolished the _ucsiticr. of Test For<exan at Oroville {originally held by Claio-Ant but then occupied by
    _ 113.

his b~.·..._^·cer

        Organization further contends that a reduction in the amOL:t

of signal construction work does not change the fact that by the rules
 adopted under the Federal Sisal Ins_ectien net certain periodic tests
 must be made on signal apparatus. inasmuch as there has been no shewi^
 to indicate Carrier had removed any cf its signal system, there remains
 the Same PI t of inspection work as heretofore and it must be
 aerfo:_ed.

 Organization concludes that Claimant ;was moved involuntarily as the result of Carrier action replacing five ^ycsiticns at Orwvi.'aJ.2 and

 :Eywa=d by four positions at Sacramento. It characterizes the re5"-:.-4n:.-.,cement ca=sed to Claima of Carrier's cpe=atic:?.l or organizational decision to car=p on its business by such deployment of its personnel.

 Carrier contends that tae =a in questic n resu:aed from "fluctuation =n business", established by Award No. 167 Of Sera -;0. 605 as Pot being °nc0.-assed by "organizational" Change as used in then parties' Agreement of November .1,n, 1971.

 In this case, according t0 Carrier, ;'.^.°,.n the 'position of Signal Test Foreman was established (held at first by Claimant, then bra :.is displace=), it .raw for the -purpose of sner<ising a signal shop at OrOV'ille incidental to and s3pportive of wCr:C, 11ICJ'm..il of -Which consisted of installation of grade crcssin5z protection dew=ces between Sacramento and Orotrilie. Eventually a-'I such sch=_daled crcss_ng protection i=rOY£TEnt :Pas acCC=lished. Accordingly, the need for t=:e Cr0`71llle Signal Shop disap^eared and the position of Signal Test ?or=an -has abolished as Superfluous. This resulted in the incumbent in that
                    A,daxd hT,l=-ber 221^1 Page 3

                  Docket Number SC-22220


jOS_t1.On e_S°1.~TClsi.^.,~'~ his 3e.^aicrity rig.~'1~ t~ displace Claimant and tae
 latter, in tc:Tn bidding into a vacanC'f at Sacramento. Carrier describes
 this as ~'a classic exam01e of a force reduction due to 3 2iuctuaticn in
 basineSS and of the mersollnel disrlace^_`w°ntS 'Shich inevitably flow
 ~e
 t. °r ei'rGTl .

 The Board is eersnaded that altho'=h the shi=ts in personnel were triggered b'~> a di.`1~71uti~n^_ i:l :~,_^_c ticnal need o2' a G=axticular :LinC. end at a -cartic··?a- location, it is more in keeling with the new conf°iF.Lration o2' cositions established by Carrier to regard the channcs i.'1 -laces `^i1 Ands of assignments as a redeployment to reet the o;eratiozal needs o·_' the Carrier. AS such, the shift of iisim3nt C.^_.~_ about because he had no other choice under the positions and alaces
 ^.2t Carrier. , ~ ~ a~-m,r
 ._v2= established b,. Ca_ o,.. .._CCia-,__;y:~ , %.'e believe oI.,.Ya .. vh_L C.ia:a.=_i..
 is a-titled tc the benefits rro-vided by Ax'^t_cle T'-iT_ o' to°_ iiatic='a.~
 ,lediatioz s?.-ee-rea of _~ov=~'.^,er 16, 19;1.

 *,... .
 ~~iD~:_n. Me Third Di-,rision of the Ad-just::.e= t ?card, upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

        That the nartias waived


Mat the Carrier and the LYDIoyes invoiced i.. this disrute are res-rectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Rail~,ay Labor Act, as a-roved June 21, 1931=;

 ln?t this D_eision cf the Ad4ust=ent ;Card has 4urisdiction over the dis=vta i=olved herein; and

        Miat the Agreement was violated.


                        A R D


        Claim susta='-ed.


                                      ~1~'vI\~71T[~._-t·, Br,. 2-

                          ~t'~ ~~ .i.i Y.(~/~iV~Y ~JL~I l~1J

                              Order of T l;=3 Division

            s

r-., y.~' ,.3
 c._~rJT.
        Exac,ltive Secretary


Dated 3t %hicaggo, -.linois, this ,31St day Of .July 'c'
                                        '(S.