"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11137) that:

(1) Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the Parties beginning September 1, 1992, when Clerk R. H. Tindall was not afforded the opportunity to transfer from Jackson, Mississippi to McComb, Mississippi with his work.

(2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk R. H. Tindall a day's pay at the pro rata rate of Position No. 171/281 beginning September 1, 1992.

(3) Carrier shall now be required to transfer Clerk R. H. Tindall from Jackson to McComb in accordance with the Agreement."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

On August 7, 1992, the Carrier issued a Section 9 Notice of Transfer stating that effective September 8, 1992, T/C Data Clerk Position No. 121/335-a at Jackson "will be transferred to McComb, MS." and that "[aIll of the duties currently performed by the position ... will be transferred to McComb." The notice further stated that the "incumbent ... of the position ... will be allowed to follow the work."

On August hl, 1992, the Carrier advertised a vacancy for TCS Clerk Position No. 121/335-a at Jackson. On August 28, 1992, Claimant was awarded that position at Jackson.

The Carrier did not transfer Claimant's TCS Clerk Position No. 121/335--1 from Jackson to McComb as stated in the August 7, 1992 Notice. Instead, the Carrier created a new position at McComb. On September 23, 1992, the Carrier advertised a newly created Yard CoordinatorITCS Clerk Position No. 171/281 at McComb. Claimant did not bid on that position.

On October 12, 1992, Claimant was assigned additional duties for his position at Jackson.

This claim asserts that Claimant's work was transferred to McComb and Claimant should have been allowed to follow that work to McComb. Notwithstanding the Organization's arguments, we find the Organization has not carried its burden to demonstrate a violation of the Agreement.

The main thrust of the Organization's arguments focuses upon Section 9 on the Merger Protective Agreement (Appendix H). However, this Board finds that the Organization has not demonstrated a violation of that section. Under Section 9(e)(1) there is a right for a protected employee to transfer "[wlhen positions are abolished as a result of work being transferred to another location and positions are established to perform the work at the location to which transferred." However, based upon what is before us, the Organization has not shown that Claimant's position was abolished at Jackson and that his work was transferred to McComb. Although the Carrier originally intended to abolish the position and transfer the work, that action was not completed. Therefore, no right to transfer has been demonstrated.

AWARD