(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation



(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Appendix M, when they refused to compensate Signal Foreman R. E. Wesney, Signalman T. A. Perry, Assistant Signalman J. T. Hale and Assistant Signalman V. E. Krassow for time spent traveling from their permanent headquarters in Galion, Ohio, to work in the New London, Ohio, area and return to their permanent headquarters for e violated the current Agreement, particularly Appendix M, when they refused to reimburse claimants for necessary expenses for meals and mileage while working away from their permanent headquarters.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Claimants at their respective rates of pay for time spent traveling from their permanent headquarters to the work area day beginning April 4, 1983. In addition, Carrier should now be required ro reimburse Claimants for necessary expenses while working away from their permanent headquarters. (Ca
                          CASE 2


(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Appendix M, when they issued Consolidated Rail Corporation Southern Region - Columbus Division Seniority District No. 19 Bulletin No. 70 advertising Assistant Signalman position instead of headquarters Galion, Ohio.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to reissue bulletin changing the headquarters location from New London, Ohio to Galion, Ohio on Bulletin No. 70." (Carrier file SD-2082)

 OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute, the Organization has raised both proce
 dural and substantive issues. Procedurally, it contends
 that the Claim should be sustained as presented, since Carrier failed to com
 ply with the requirements of Agreement Rule 4-K-1(a). Specifically, it as
 serts that Carrier violated Rule 4-K-1(a) when the Division Engineer rather
 than the Supervisor - CLS (or other designated supervisor) denied the Claim
                      Award Number 26457 Page 2

                      Docket Number SG-26091


and this decisional action contravened the rule's procedural requirements. It cited several Third Division Awards to support its position (see Third Division Award Nos. 16508, 17 on substantive ground, that Carrier violated Sections 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 of Appendix M, when Claimants to New London, Ohio, a distance in excess of fifty (50) miles. It requests compensatory reimbursement for the time spent travelling from their asserted permanent headquarters to New London, Ohio and return.

 Carrier argues that the Claim is procedurally valid, since the Organizaton at no step during the 4-K-1(a) was violated. It did acknowledge in its rebuttal brief, however, that the General Chairman did take this view point at the conference with the Senior Director - Labor Relations.

 As to the substantive merits of this dispute, Carrier asserts that it was not precluded by Appendix M from changing an employee's headquarters and accordingly, consistent with the implicit meaning of Agreement Rule 2-A-4, it had unrestricted authority to effectuate changes in headquarter's location. It observes that Rule 2-A-4 provides an affected employer with job protection options, if changes occur in his position. It noted these changes were explicitly identified in Rule
          "This include:


              (a) Assigned rest days or days


              (b) Headquarters


              (c) Territorial limits


                  (d) Assigned tour of duty, except due to Daylight Saving Time


              (e) Change in technology in a plant or

              section"


Since it was not esrtopped by Appendix M or the Controlling Agreement from changing the headquarters location of any position, it argues that instant Claims are without s the option of retaining their positions or exercising displacement rights within ten (10) calendar days of the location change.

 In considering this case, we concur with Carrier's position. While we share with the Organization its concern that the Division Engineer was not the Supervisor - CLS, we cannot disregard the Organization's failure to contest this point in its ap find that Carrier complied with Rule 4-K-1(a). We do advise that the parties meet and clarify more pointedly this aspect of the grievance appeals process.
                      Award Number 26457 Page 3

                      Docket Number SG-26091


Similarly, as to the merits of the Claim, we find that neither Appendix M nor the Agreement prev implications of Rule 2-A-4, Carrier properly changed the Headquarters of Signal Gang-CA-A7 from Gali that this action was violative of the Agreement or Appendix M. The affected employees could have exercised displacement rights if they didn't elect to retain their positions. Since Galion, Ohio was no longer Claimants' permanent Headquarters, they were not entitled to the reimbursement sought. As to Case 2, we find no Agreement support for the same reasons. The new permanent Headquarters point was now N
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ev - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 24th day of August 1987.