Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27602
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-27574
 88-3-87-3-185
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr., when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Claims on behalf of E. A. Cratin for December 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 1985; January 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31; February 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28; March 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, 1986 for eight (8) hours pay each at Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher's Rate for dispatching work that was fo Dispatcher in the Philadelphia Division Office until November 11, 1985 when division boundaries were changed.

 Claims were presented in accordance with Rule 2 - Seniority. In particular with that part of the paragraph of the consolidation notice dated December 7, 1984, 'the Consolidation described above will not result in any reduction of train dispatching territory and there will be no reduction in the number of train dispatchers positions."'

 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 employees 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.

This dispute concerns an extensive series of claims arising from the Carrier's action in realigning the operating division boundary between New York and Philadelphia from Milepost 57 at Trenton, New Jersey to Milepost 76 at Holmesburg, Pennsylvania Dispatching responsibility for this trackage was transferred from Dispatchi The Claimant is an Assistant Chief Dispatcher headauartered in Philadelphia.

 The Claimant initiated claims on February 19, 1986, for a series of dates commencing November 13, 1985. Claims for later dates were initiated on April 3, 1906. Prior to presentation to this Boara, these identical claiuns were consolidated. In so doing, the Organization dropped those claims for dates more than 60 days prior to February 19, 1986, and also corrected several other dates.
 Form 1 Award No. 27602
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-27574
 88-3-87-3-185

 The Board does not find, as the Carrier contends, that the dispute before the Board is substantially different from that presented on the property. The issue as to the the dispatching territory from Philadelphia to New York was never in doubt, and the citation of the dates is secondary to the issue itself.

 The Carrier also contends that only a claim within 60 days after the initial dispatching territory change would have been valid (if timely filed)Since the change was a c
By way of background, the Carrier on December 7, 1984, gave more than 90 days' notice to the Organization of the "consolidation of the Baltimore and Philadelphia Train Dispatchers offices." In the letter of notification, the Carrier stated:

On October 8, 1985, the Carrier gave notice of less than 90 days of the change which is the basis of the dispute here under review. The Carrier stated in pertinent part as follows:






Form 1 Award No. 27602
 Page 3 Docket No. TD-27574
 88-3-87-3-185
 "(h) 1. When dispatching territories are changed within
 an office, not less than thirty (30) days advance notice thereof
 shall be given in writing by the Director of Labor Relations
 to the General Chairman and conference thereon shall be had
 at the request of either party.
 2. When dispatchers offices are to be consolidated,
 or part of a dispatchers territory is to be transferred to
 another office, not less than ninety (90) days notice in
 writing shall be given to the General Chairman, by the Direc
 tor of Labor Relations, in cases that will require a change
 in a Train Dispatchers residence."
 In the Board's view and concurring with the Organization, Rule 2
 (h) 1, on which the Carrier relies in its letter, is inapplicable since the
 territory change was not "within an office" but, rather, between Philadelphia and
 New York. On the other hand, the Board finds equally inapplicable the Organi
 zation's contention that 90 days' notice of the change was required under Rule
 2 (h) 2. That section is applicable, as stated in the Rule, "in cases that
 will require a change in a Train Dispatchers residence." Such did not occur here.

 The Organization additionally relies on the Carrier's assurance in its December 7, 1984 letter (involving the Baltimore-Philadelphia consolidation) that such "will not territory." The Organization argues that the Carrier has violated its own commitment when it did reduce the Philadelphia office territory 11 months later.

 The Organization's position is understandable, in view of the Carrier's October 8, 1985 letter, quoted above, which states that the "recent consolidation of the B desirable" to initiate the further change here under review.

 The Carrier, however, alleges that the change was made for the purpose of consolidating "the ope and was _not a result of the Philadelphia-Baltimore consolidation. The Carrier alleges that the Organization was so advised in conference on the dispute. Examination of the record fails to disclose that the later change arose as a direct consequence of the earlier change. Other factors involving the relationship of the New York D Division were involved.

 As to Rule 2 (h) 1, the Carrier did provide 30 days' notice, even if the change was not "within an office." The 90-day notice under Rule 2 (h) 2 is not applicable, since there was not a required change in residence. The fact that no reduction in Train Dispatcher positions occurred in the PhiladelphiaNew York realignment is Form 1 Award No. 27602
 Page 4 Docket No. TD-27574
 88-3-87-3-185




                        By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October 1988.