Article IN' of :%pril 16, 1986 National Agreement established the contractual means by «hich a carrier could implement procedures for direct control of train movements by Train Dispatcher personnel. This involved in many instances the elimination of work for other employees assigned as part of train movement control. The implementation of this change, involving electronic controls operable almost regardless of distance from the train movements, was gradually implemented by various carriers. Included in Article IV are protective benefits for employees adversely affected "as a result of the implementation of direct train control."

The Claimant Has a Train Director assigned at Homewood, Illinois. On January 10, 1993 his position %%as abolished. On this basis, the Organization contends that the Claimant, assigned to a lower paying position, is entitled to protective benefits under .article IV. As emphasized frequently in Awards considering such entitlement, "The burden is on the claiming party to prove a causal connection between the transaction complained of [here, the abolishment of the Claimant's position] and the event which inspired the protective conditions [direct train movement control].^

The record as pro% ided to the Board does not convincingly demonstrate that it was the centralization of train control operations which caused the Claimant's status change. Other than citation of article IV, the on-property claim handling fails to do so, as well. 11'hile the Carrier does not bear the procedural burden of disproving a "causal connection," the Carrier nevertheless points out that, at the Markham Yard where the Claimant was stationed, operations reduced between 1986 and 1993 from six to two processing yards and the complete elimination of humping operations.

It appears that this was sufficient to warrant the Train Director position abolishment.

AWARD