"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of J. C. Carter, for $1530.57 in moving expenses, $800.00 moving allowance and five days' pay for moving, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 80 and the Change of Residence Article VIII, November 16, 1971 Agreement - Changes of Residence due to Technological, Operational or Organizational Changes, Q-1-91 of the current Agreement, when it abolished the Claimant's position on October 12, 2004, on Signal Gang 8252 with headquarters at Calienti, Nevada, and then established a new Zone Gang (8253) with the exact same number of positions causing the Claimant to have to relocate from Calienti, Nevada to Nephi, Utah on or about July 4, 2005. Carrier's File No. 1431764. General Chairman's File No. UPGCW-41-1149. BRS File Case No. 13657-UP."

expenses incurred when he displaced from Caliente, Nevada, to an assignment in Nephi, Utah. The record reflects that he had been assigned to a Western District gang with a fixed headquarters at Caliente. When the Carrier no longer had work for that gang, it was discontinued. As events unfolded, at the same time there was another Signal Gang (a Zone Gang) being established for assignment on a separate roster with headquarters provided as "on-line." In essence, it was intended that the members of the new gang were to receive expense allowances.

These two gangs were not on the same seniority roster and were not performing identical work. When the Claimant was unable to obtain a position on the newly created Zone Gang, the Organization attempted to pair the gangs and to forge a position that the Claimant was entitled to moving allowances in accordance with Rule 80 and Change of Residence Article VIII of the Agreement. The Carrier contended that the Claimant was not entitled to moving allowances and denied the request.

"Rule 80 - Lass of Earnings: An employee covered by this agreement who suffers loss of earnings because of violation or misapplication of any portion of this agreement will be reimbursed for such loss."

"Article VIII - Changes of Residence Due to Technological, Operational or Organizational Changes: When a carrier makes a technological, operational or organizational change requiring him to move his residence, such transfer and change of residence shall be subject to the benefits contained in Sections 10 and 11 of the Washington Job Protection Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in said provisions, except that the employee shall be granted 5 working days instead of `two working days' provided in Section 10(a) of said Agreement; and in addition to such

As recited in Third Division Award 34969:

"The abolishment of a position by itself does not invoke the protections [of Article VIII] . . . . [T]he action in this case involved a job abolishment, not an operational or organizational change. The claim shall be denied."

The record offers no support for the proposition that the Carrier here abolished a headquartered gang and established an on-line gang to perform the same function. Whereas the gang to which the Claimant was formerly attached could only work on the seniority territory of the Western Seniority District, the newly established gang could work on the larger territory including the Western Seniority District, the Oregon Seniority District, the Nevada Seniority District and the Portland Seniority District. Thus this was not a case of abolishing the Western Seniority District Gang and establishing it elsewhere on the Western Seniority District.

Additionally, because the initial gang's reduced workforce was due to decreased workloads it was not an `organizational or operational change.' Thus the Organization failed to demonstrate that the Claimant was affected by an organizational or operational change of the type that would trigger entitlement of relocation benefits.

As stated in Third Division Award 29910:

"It is the Organization's responsibility to . . . demonstrate that Claimant was affected by an organizational or operational change of the type that would trigger entitlement of relocation benefits[.]... The Organization has bottomed its claim principally on the argument that Carrier's . . . letter constituted such a change, ergo, every time an employee relocates he is entitled to the benefits of [the] Rule[.] The Board is unwilling to accept this as appropriate, in light of the fact, that it has long been held, by scores of awards, that job abolishments resulting from a lack of work are not, per se, considered as job

AWARD