Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28189
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28349
 89-3-88-3-115
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

On behalf of Marshall Magee for benefits under APPENDIX 14, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly APPENDIX 14, when it Pocatello, Idaho to Las Vegas, Nevada." Carrier file 87-03956

 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.

Claimant's position at the Pocatello, Idaho, Signal Shop was abolished and, by virtue of his sen position in Nevada, about 165 miles from his residence. It was this move which triggered Claimant's request for a lump sum payment as provided in Article XII of the January 8, 1982 National Agreement.

 The Organization argues that the act of abolishing a series of positions at the Pocatello Signal covered by the phrase "technological, operational and organizational" as used in Article XII of the applicable National Agreement. The Organization argues further that elimination of positions at the Signal Shop was part of a restructuring program. In add the Signal Shop. The Organization maintains that Carrier changed the organizational entity of the Si the moving and transfer benefits.
 Form 1 Award No. 28189
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28349
 89-3-88-3-115

 Carrier states that the actions taken with respect to the Signal Shop at Pocatello were caused by a fall-off in business and consequent budgetary constraints. In short, Carrier argues that all that transpired was a reduction in force for business the Pocatello Signal Shop. Carrier insists that there were no technological, operational or organizational changes and the shop continued to operate as it had in the past, albeit with fewer employees.

 An examination of the record of this dispute supports Carrier's assertion that there were advers employment. This is demonstrated by the end product of work continuing at the Signal Shop with better than a 50 per cent reduction in Agreement personnel. The crux of this dispute is the charge by the Organization that a technological, organizational or o However, the Organization has not furnished specific information or evidence to support its general allegation. As the Board views it, all the record shows is the abolishing of several positions, including Claimant's. Such actions do not constitute a violation of Article XII when travel and transfer allowances are denied (see Awards 7, 69 and 300 of SBA No. 605 as well as Third Division Award 25363). The Claim, consequently, must be denied.




                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. D -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1989.