Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27572
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-26818
 88-3-85-3-586
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Denver 6 Rio




Glenwood Springs, Colorado; assigned territory Mile Post 343.4 to Mile Post
 368.6; assigned hours 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM; assigned meal period noon to 12:30
 PM; assigned rest days Monday, Tuesdays and holidays.



General Chairman file 24-58. Carrier file SG-7-84.

        "Claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer M. C. Horta, headquarters

Colorado Springs, Colorado; assigned territory Mile Post 33.0 to Mile Post
 104.7; assigned hours 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM; assigned meal period noon to 12:30
 PM; assigned rest days Mondays, Tuesdays and holidays.
 Form 1 Award No. 27572
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-26818
 88-3-85-3-586
 (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agree
 ment, as amended, particularly Article VIII of
 the Agreement of November 16, 1971, Article XII
 of the Agreement of January 8, 1982, and Sec
 tions 10 and 11 of the Washington Job Protection
 Agreement of May, 1936, when on or about Sunday,
 October 14, 1984, it failed to pay Mr. Horta
 transfer allowance and moving expense benefits
 as outlined in the Agreements mentioned above.
 (b) Carrier should now be required to reimburse Mr.
 Horta for $225.00 moving expenses, as outlined
 in Section 10(a) of the Washington Job Pro
 tection Agreement; compensate him for $533.20 -
 five working days pay; and $400.00 transfer al
 lowance as outlined in Article VIII of the
 November 16, 1971 Agreement and in Article XII
 of the January 8, 1982 Agreement, or a total of
 $1,158.20."

 General Chairman File 24-57. Carrier file SG-6-84

 FINDINGS:

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


The sequence of events precipitating the instant dispute stands uncontested. On August 30, 1984, 1984, H. W. Armstrong was relieved of his position as Assistant Signal Supervisor because of an inci
September 5, 1984, Carrier posted a notice advising of the territorial change in Signal Supervis
On September 10, 1984, Bulletin No. 1394 was issued advising assignment of Claimant Horta to the Springs.
 Form 1 Award No. 27572
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-26818
 88-3-85-3-586

 By September 30, 1984, Mr. Armstrong completed his vacation as Supervisor and advised Carrier that he would displace T. L. Foral who occupied the Signal Gang Foreman's position on Signal Gang No. 1.

 October 1, 1984, Carrier issued Circular No. 31 advising that the position of Assistant Signal Supervisor at Glenwood Springs was abolished. On that same date, Mr. Armstrong displaced Mr. Foral. Subsequently, Mr. Foral displaced Claimant treason who occupied the Signal Maintainer position at Bond, Colorado. Claimant, in turn, displaced on the position of Signal Maintainer at Glenwood Spring
It is the Organization's position that Carrier violated Article VIII of the November 16, 1971 National Agreement, as amended by Article XII of the January 8, 1982 National Agreement, by abolishing the Assistant Signal Supervisor's position and cre Springs, Colorado almost simultaneously, and made an organizational change which created a cascade of displacements which required Claimants to move their regular work points.

 Carrier denies that such displacements were the result of an operational change as the Employees manner in accordance with the Agreement and not as a result of an operational change.

 The Board concurs with Carrier's position. The burden here is on the Organization to show proof of an organizational or operational change in its method of doing business as it relates to the Claimants. (Third Division Award No. 23385.) In the instant case, contrary to what the Organization is contending, we believe that the abolition of the Assistant Signal Supervisor's position did not trigger the protective benefits claimed in this case. Even if one could conclude that the abolition of a position can be taken to constitute a "technological, many cases which place that proposition in doubt (see Third Division Award 22496 and Award Nos. 7 and 76 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605), the record here establishes t which must be viewed as the first "link" or "domino" to fall in the subsequent Claim of displacements. That action, as Carrier correctly notes, is not under the purview of the January 8, 1982, National Agreement but under the provisions of the working Agree
As for Third Division Award 22175, heavily relied upon by the Organization, the circumsta instant case by virtue of the fact that the occurrences on which the Board acted in that case involv ."coordinated plan of restructuring the Department," thereby constituting an organizational change.< Form 1 Award No. 27572
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-26818
 88-3-85-3-586

 We find no such pattern here or any other indicia which could reasonably be regarded as a "technological, operational or organizational change requiring an employee to transfer to a new point of employment. Accordingly, we must deny the Claim.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


                  00,


Attest:
      Nancy J ,Offer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 1988.