ail Gan(, A,oreernont i==rantcda deo'ision sLiriiv date to those svsteni rail yane menabelv vvIlo did

' The Carrier submits that these earIV System zwil ;!an2s were labor inters4am-e populated by track bborers. NN hen

district seniority.

This Ai°eeent shall econne effective September I. 11983 and srs des ail rules, practices and working conditions in conflict teresvitfx: and =hall continue in effect until changed as provided ic~r in the Raikva- I aor Act, as an-tended.

In a letter dated '= 4x l94. the MP informed the Organization that. effective lure m, 1984. the MP xs-old use district tie gangs to perform rehabilitation of road crossings and the replacement of Ties, switches and surfacing, within the tin-ilts of Lie reneN:°al projects. The Organization did not challene the transfer of this surfacing work from division forces to district tic qns.

The Carrier and the Organisation completely revised anal recodified their property areement effective july I. 2ooo. `rney, incorporated the Sy;=scent Rail Gana Areen-tent and the District Tic Gart2 Agreement into the jly I. 2'000 Agreenrent.' [See Rules 3(a) aid 4s`a) of the July I . -2000 Areeirient]

was iniermissile lbecanse it had foregone the regional and SVSt; r1-,,k-:ide gang rules emanatmg from Presidetial Erneraencv Board No. 219 and the 1991. Imposed Natiomal ,greerei-A in favor of existing rules. The On«anizatioelaorated that the Carrier's preservation of the pre-1991 rules

While the record is not entirely clear. Rule w ofthe,,luI) t. 2000 A greemersc evidently loose red senioru~ restrictions so that a rtsplcsy ees could muse heNw n the sNste sea `sorits and the district seniority rosters ~Aithout for ifeiiing their seniority.

BA No. 1 0': Award No, 1, BNINVv. UP

t-neant that it could not esmblish a s~-stem-xide -Lie gang. Accord =ng to she Organization, the Carrier abndoned its contemplated action to convert tie district tie gangs into system tie gangs.

.A little over two ve xrs later. the Carrier seii-ed its e; ember 5, 200_> notice. which led to the: instant controversy.

The Oraaniration initially argues that the Carrier's proposed action sloes not constitute all operational or organizational change under Article 111, Section l of the February 7, 196-5 Job Stabilization Aureement. The Oranization rises w .o alternative aroam.ents. Even if the Carrier's proposed action is a.a operational and organizational change, the Carrier waived its right to in\ ore article lit. Section 1 try this District Tie Gana and NsterRa14 Gang Agreements and,or its past bargaining positions equitably estop the Carrier frorimplenienting As proposal

The Carrier's proosed ac-Lion is not are operational and organizational charge -on its face. ~,Iorc irriortantly. the Carrier attempts to achieve through article 111, Section l something that is has never before asserted that it leas the authority to do. The negotiating history. the Carrier°s past admissions before 'residumial En..ereenc~ Beards, and apastractice evince that the Carrier cwirnot implement its proposed action a> an operational or organizational change under the auspices, of the ebruar;v '17, 1965 Job Stabilization Apreenjent.

BA No. 1087: Award No. I BM WE -,,, UP

provide that rail taking work is performed y_ systerri-xide gacy njemers holding, seniority on tire 6'te.C afl.£...~..`''`''1;Crt`~'i'st.''~'ala ts~'.'%.i_i..C.1`t §t,~9~i.~rmwda ), nie.°b°r9 (.,fiaie distr?ct tic ~a~ gs holtfirg seniority on the applicable district seniority roster. In the extxetne. the Carrier could ro ;Ii tie and zricixn nor lc:ia l Rer l the cistr<ctiprgs to syste-ice c,anQ,,,, sc)txtt thitiit nstacccssftzil\,, tried to accomplish in Z0 l . Ire essence. the Carrier is attempting to combine the district and system seniority rosters. The Carrier lacks the authority to consolidate seniority districts pursuant to Article 111, Section I of the February 7 1965 .lob Stabilization Areerent. SpceialBoari qj'AcIjusimentNo. 605, Aivart/;Vo, 5. Other decisions of Special Board tai Adjustment No. 605 hold that the Mere 1Caassi=-Mirrzent of work is trot an operational change. iu=c°rlc~a-r:~'t=rrcf~r;.~. 60?. Aivar~lXos. 50 30tj and X04. In this case, the Carrier is simply reassigning souse nnovn aic~nt tit tic work front one group of employees tdistrict tic gana-s) to ;rnc>ther -roup of eniplovecs (system rail hangs).

Under the Ca"s'r1eIVs proposed action. the location of the tie work does not change nod so. it is not transferring work. The absence of any work transfer is another indication that tics Carrier is not engaging in art operational or organizational chang).

Durinlo tire previous four decades, the Carrier ne,-erottght to acccmiplisf that which it sleeks to do its its December 5. 2003) notice. Tire negotiating history of the Febmarf_ B 965 R,a

Stabilization A.vrectetn and stab seclctent national agreet-ttents ntani best that the Carrier does not have the right, -under Article Ill, Section I, that it asserts here, Thin C`-- rriur has, over rriany dears, consistentiv takers tine position in national barvainina thaat it. needs the te:xibiIitv to uncian=ditiorafv estalisn svsteni.-tide (zan-s. This position obviotaslv shos that it currently lacks such Eemhdity.

SBA No. 087: AN~ard No. 1' Page 7

Back ~n 2964 i)efor~ fry sidcnt:al men2enLy Board No. 1 3. the nation's carriers advanced a prooSal to consolidate s,niority districts, A nien-aer of the presidential panel observed that 'he carriers` proposaf could involve a revolutionary change in emloyrnent. Ire a I96Sccti6 notice. the c-arrsers pzoosoclimtnailriw the 1965 Job, Stabilization Agreement. One wonders w'£`-. if the .fob Stahl Iizatin Agreement provided the II \ ihility the Carrier asserts ire ;his case, than the railroads wanted to escape from the 1 965 Job Stabilization Agreement.

n a duly 12, 1984 Section 6 -nofce proposing a litany of w=cork rui-- than-gcse the carriers wanted to eliminate restrictions on which class of erloyees cold perform work and to £ob'ain th. unilateral po-,per to relign arid combine seniority districts. The 3986 report issued by Preside-nual

rnereencv Bord No. dI I did not grant the carriers the authority that they sought bait warned that a future Presidential Board might consider a national rule if local ne-otations over combimn

Ire their submission to 'residential Emergency Board No. 219, the carriers specifically co.napfairied that the 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement had halted self-correcting fetuses that appeared £n earier contracts and so, the carriers needed the ntettered discretion to consolidate scnioritv districts. The Carrier's Vice resident of mJneeri2 testified before Presidential

nlergecy Board -No. `' I 9, that while pangs oil the former k 'nion Pacific territory can a utilized for av t o.f s=t m work. MP gangs \vere ret rictbto tie gangs and nothiu2 else. The Ca--Tier official's representation :S an admission that :he Carrier cannot ci`caLe svstcrn arid regional gangs, fhe statements of a. Carrier official before a Presidential f zneruenc:y Board are admissions hccausc° Ihev are not exa-2erated arcurnentS, but ratber declaratsons fair fact. <5pceict`/ Boar,] £?lA~ju.4r tJ7ent F\ro. 1 08~`. Awarcfc), ?. Thus. as of 91)0. fxistino rules on thu :NIP, including FArciclIII of tile Feruarv

7> 196-i jcb Stabilization Agreeznent> did not c;r;skit te estali~,°lnmef~t of systeni-xvide pie s~amg s which is exacttv what the arrit~r seeks to accomplish herein. Although Presidential Eme-pency Board :`~<~. _'ir£corr:x-ner£iecx the estabishment c>f reaionai aizd sNszcm-w-ic: ear;os and te 1991ln-ioseNationaAgrcment prDNidd or the establishment of'suc:h ,anL~s. this CarrhLr elected to

No. 219. As a result Of its election, the Carrier withdrm a September ? -5 . 1991 notice to establish re2ional tie Liang's. A month and a half later, on Noveinber f 9. 1991. the Carrier sought to conibine the four tip ,anasbut it did not follow tiirou~gh urn its roposal after the Organization objected to the notice because the Carricrhad opted l'br the savings clause,

In its 1996 presentation to Presidential F-Aergncy Board No. 229. the carriers sought the 1le,~iility to aps1V the pry-Presidential Ertii:rg£ncy Bord o. 2 19 rules as YNvll as rhe £?sr'resientiai Erneracncv Board No. ? 1ruin s. ov,-ever, the 19National ALyreernerst provided. ?11 Article XV1. that the Presidential Emergency Board No,22 19 rules only applied to Lhose carriers ~xho tin£ely ei.ectelo iripi'ement the Presidential Emergency Board No. 219 rules.

hLIs. SinCe I965,, the bar~-aining history show£ that Oie Carrier does not have tic rvg,111 hat ;t seeks iodlav. Fhe Carrier simply cannot reassign vNork from one group of eniplo,,.-ees to another under ci~ee exi4.tim~, agreements or Article .III. Section I ofthe I=eruar~:" 7. 195 .itch Stabilization

Since the Carrier did not altain what It \),arvcd through national bargainingthe Cx-rier is bound bv the terms of the District Fle Gang uid Systern Rail Gang Agreenients, Those,-Ngrecnients

flie work that those Lmn--s perform. Moreover, if Artc1e 111. Section l of tile 'eruar~ ?. 1965 Job Stabili zton :rya°ecYmcrt

1, a ~ c ~ , '

prI or rules, which includes s=article 113. Section 1 of the Job Stabilization Agreement. J-he S-stern Rail Oang A2reernent therefore. crams nv jested rights that the Carrier had under Article III. Section 1.

The Carrier's reliance on Award o. 7 of Special Board of Adjjustrnent No. 107 is misplaced. In that decision, the Board dirt not, interret Article III, Section I because the Organization never challen_ c:d the Carrier's r=ht to transform a Liang witlf fiiobile he aeaarte rs into a completely new gang with a fixed heaclUaf-ters. `he Board found that =he Carrier rearranged the niarin-..,r oI'orL°anizin,,,,,riche arid building gangs. 'I'liis actIN-itv cannot i)e extra,)olated to ieaii that the Carrier is nfakina an orL~anizatlonal chance ifs this case.

-ana or the System Rail Gars Agreements. lft~e Carrier is COITe0, =hen it could take its proposed action whgwfer Article LII. Section I exists or not.

Last. ii the Carrier's proposed action is an article 111. Suction 1 operational agreement organizational

rcas;Igrunent of work ~vIll impact workers' seniority. Moreover. in conjunction ?with the Southern Pa-cic erger. the parties enterled inter New York Dock in:plerric-nunagreemrerrts granting prior rights to some ernlo-,ccs. .An Impl.-ivting, agreement gust euiav address how =o apply Lire-,e prior ri-hts ire viexv of the overall seniority ir11acts.

In surrirrrarv, the Carrier is trying to obtain thnouh arbitration that vlrich it could not obtain xhrouh co<lCctive bar(,cirri=,. If the Carrier prevrxil,~ herein. the result will undl-t-minc the national agreerraent srovisions overninregional and systern production ganoos as; xvell as negate the District 'Fie Clang. arid ystern Rail Gang A grey rnents. The Carrier simply ~vants to fill tie gang po ist' rrs from rr different seniority roster. Tire creation of such extra gangs is riot an operational or oranizationaehnoe.

13. Tile Carrier's Position

In recent years. major track mairrtcriancand rclraiirrrtion is being pcrfonred bN- hi_;hly' .mechanized maintcrrance of '<v:ry gangs. These gangs \~:ork on huge rojectacross ran-· rnfes <;3f ,rack. Trafic-voiurne has increased substantially so drat the Carrier experiences great difficulty i. ~chedling track maintenance and rehabilitation. On busy rail Corridors. track rchabdiiation rrr=;:t be scheduled during o`f.eak seasons (customers will trot tolerate shipment delays during eak seaxons ) and lie completed as quickly as feasible. The district tie gangs cannot possibly satisIN these oeratior>al requirements,

Bv Its December r. _`003 notice. the Carrier seeks to estalAish a Iirrrned number ol'syslenn rail =gangs to splernenr the existing disifct tie teas. Having tl-il suplcnental., sY, sr'mi gangs participate in the work perforreci y the district tie gangs %~ III acccleraae the tune needed tee complete

I 1_1,

work to one group of crrrlfo~ees, the Carver Nv:ll reap efficiencies ",)v assigning the vcrrk -o two OrcrUP s %}T emloYees. Changing the method crf perfor-rrrlrrrhe ,vork is much rrwre than an ail .11roC transfer of a frnhe portion of work sucas occurred in Special Boardc#'rMjvstr77e r V'o. 605, ~4avard Yo. j03(h). Rather, the Carrier Nvill enLyae n a material rearran2enre-t in the method ref accomplishing recurring tie. and surfacing wcrrL The change is similar to the type of erpluyce rearrangement adclresscinArsarilAn. `of,1`j)VejrrjBoarclo; 4tjusnnewN0. '087, if changrngothe headquarters c}f a three -rneinher brig; and uildino, gag constitutes an Article 111, section I operational car organizational change. then certainly, a rnassiva reor.-aniza>ic3n of major mil and tip: Maintenance programs a-smeets the criteria for art article ll. Section I change, Furthermore. other awards issued y Special Board of Ajustrnent No. 605 show that transferring %vrk from rte seniority district try anotber (but stav'srrL within craft boundaries) constitutes a transfer ofvvorunder Article III, Section I of the ebruarv ?. 16S Job Stabilization Agreement. Special tzar°d cad 4r jzrsiment."C~r. 005. :Pr~-crr _-'cr.. '06e '-6 crr0 4 117.

The Carrier's irrterrcl,mrrt does not % ioar the -,ter Rail aarr«r t c hitri lie Car

A_ereemerts. In l 984_ the Carrier demonstrated that it leas the right to transfer the work under the"Se aoreenmits. IC transferred division Nvork to the district tie gangs vllhout any protest from the Cdr=oaniation. o. the Or-,arrizarion conceded that the Carrier has she autlroriiv to transfer work amorro the eerr>s of mrr.enarrce art -~vav Iorces, In addition. the Carrier is not consolidating seniority districts. All employees ~N-iII maintain their status on the current seniority rosters. The three tiers of seniority ~;vfl rerraaln and endure.

The District Tic Clam and Svsterra Rail C-TanuA_uTreerrrents do not reserve any work e>rclasivei~, to any particular group of enilr3-ews. In the past, the Organization has unsuccessfully

chailemaed the Carrier's pr-eroga~Ivc tco a~ign systetn rail gazes to p erforan routine track maintenance vvhich. the Organization asserted. belonsas -xclusivelv to division forces. .A°RA3 lhrtl Dr`vis~-on. -l=waro`A'_~. .'99`r. Thus. rafx lak-ir<<w and tie work is not reserved to anNr kind cat env.

The Crrler dial riot \, air°e car bargain away rights, o take the proposed action ire the S\ stem Rail Gana or Dstrkct I`ie Gana Agreements. Neither ofthose contracts inetions the Femarv ?, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement. Section 3 0 of the Svstem Rail Garaa- A2reerrient only operates to supersede prior rules pertaining to system vangs. The section does, not denigrate rides covering other matters irrcudinopz°i-xlrcra~°iztial changes,

NntlJr2 are the negotiating- histry ten.-Ionstrates that the Carrier el£er xvaived itst-ights under Arfcle III. Section I roc emitted that it ac-s authoritv to et?-,age: iii the proposed operational and. on-anizatzonal changl-. The niernber of Presiential Emergency Boa.rd No. 163 -who skeptically referred to a proposal as rewhitionry -was adclressizxg a proposal shat i.~oulcl have allov.ed tire

transfer of work across craft lines.` Here. a> required by the February 7. 1965 Job Stabilization

.~imcial Boa_`c!i A~,I,"zi5!rne_gt .¢eO.''. Aisar°(I ','r). cleai·lv delMeated that a road interpretation must a given F£) ,23e operational and oirtatsnizationac'iane'e atioaiiat',- found in °'2i title

r

Ill. Section l of he 'e6run° ~`. 19115 Job Stabilization Aai`eemer¥t. The Oraization is ow

irrt'strd, `crc`ftaa` l*szarrst t~'.~as._rra_st'ta_ 6x05-4wartl.No. 514 a rstntsgi~as from the case herein i~ecause <.>f the alleged transfer t_1 work from taste craft to ~ttasther.

7 Tie viitr iers, iiti`ei~dy ttid a ptietcara of rights to make these cart - Article f tI. Section I scafciirvd and :fsaaxe tbcsse a°i-his.
-qurtanly stopped from rguir- a limited construction of diorse terns since, ?n -Iwara' ;',*o. %, it
s iooror2Sly arguedthat thCarrier eide possesses Wr(.frSC'r'f:11on to I changes tarlrr" ilhe Jolb
Stabilization Agrecnicnt~

An implementing, agt°een2ent 15 not required t,°het"Le such an agreenient woulbe tapriecessary on a particular property prior' o the Joii Stahl lizatinn Agreement. :~,Pecial Board r~ :Musrlnenftr. 605, a,fwar°d:~,cr. 43. Since the Carrier i; not transferrino errrplcrvec,;, no loican reason exists for eotiatfnu an implementing agreement.

In conclusion. the Carrier's proposed action is an operational and oroanizationl change

pen.rlisible under Article ILC, Section 1 of the 1,965 Job tafalizaticrn Areernent arid. 'in n exchange,
ernployees receive ample ancf lucrative protection.

Tff. D3f SC USION

Both the Oranl7anc>.n and the Carrier proffered extensive extrinsic eviden=ce to support their respective positions. The Organization relies not only on the rlegotitltrng history ofvarious national rrgi-c:c:rnents bw also on an al3e==xed adrnls«crn that a Carr1ier official rncfe =ef0re a Presidential Erarerencv Boar. The Oreanizatio n al,-,o subrrms that the provisions of the District Tic fang ;end SNsterrr Rail GnL, Aereerne n'ts demonstrate that the Carrier wai%-ed its riOit to 1m into effect the

action escrIiein its December 5. 1003 notice,' f or its part. tire Carrier contends Mat its movement (.If %vork frtrrn. division forces tci district tie gangs are 1984 excrnpliies past pnacticb o=f rnaing chanaes sirrafar to tyre rahan2e contemplated ire its ecewnber 5. 4003 notice. ``he Carr er <a'~ err? that staternenis triadeefore Presidential rer-Lency° Boards can hardly ; construed «s acfrnissions and ce.r-tainlv cannot ire r;nllzecf to interpret solemnly negotiated agreements, `fire Organozati Oil replies

More specifically, tire Organization argues that Sostiott 10 of the System Rail Gam-, Agreement r?r)erafes akin to 2 Lipper clause so that tire Carrier relinquished arty tights 6t had in pre-1983 agreements unless evpres0y enunciated in the SNsterrr Rail Gang Agreement.

SBA N0. 1 087: :,%varo. I S

a'e 1 5

st:ecessfl ttel-rits to c oso1idte scnirity ors the former MP in 1991 ad ?00 i

soNr- that it lacks ;e authority n) implement the action set forth in the December 5. AW notice.
Finally, both parties assert that the cliher is equitably estone. The Carrier clairs :hat fe
Organization's position herein is contrary to the position on which it prevailed in Sj?ccial Board of

.° tt s'.

Aworcl:Vo. rv. The Organization coul)ters that the Carrier is i;nproviCntl,v

attempting to unilaterally amend the District Tic Gang and Systern fail Gant, Agreements in violation of the Railway Labor Act.

°I`he Board carefully evaluated thetotality of the extrinsic evidence. '4° cncluCe that, within
the peculiar circumstances oftis particular dispute, the extrinsic evidence does not have sufticient
probative value on wh .ich to preicate a con sierrate and reasonable d; His ion. Rather, tla<e3oarfis
that the ia,uain Article Ill., Section I of the February 7. 1965 Job Stabilization Agreernent. along
~,,,ith prior arbitrable decisions, is the most reliable evidence Laid the most t persuasiNle precedents for
adicatio ~ this c;ontrovers

~T.'

While Article Ill expansively recognizes the Carrier's r.i-11t to engage in technolo-ical. o,ertionai and c>roaniztiona1 claanoes. the drafters of the Job Stabilization --k(Ireement did not precisely define those three ty es of changes, flovve-~,er. the express enunicration of 1hree cham,

implies that all otfaer types of changes are outside the ambit of Article ITT, Section I. \14arc.over. it is abundantly CIeaTthat the Carrier is vested with the right to transt'er work or employees throughout its system, without abridging craft ];ties, ln e<ajilntrilt.?3b with a lechriological. operational or organa.-ationl change . As the artfes stipulated., the threshold ~ssueef'ore this Board is whcakle$ the action described in the Carvicr's December 5. 2003 notice constitutes a teclu-iolouical, operational

This Board ertcptt3sizes that extrinsic evidence is not the best e~ -i=9erace co resolew this particular dkinite. Extrinsic etttitttCe is probative and reliable S4'$ren an agreement provision £% unclear and "hen tit rec=atr3 Lacks :any past arrbitt-a3 attehorit,~ on an issue in con_meavy.

In Aivas°cl _1oos. 15031b) and 504. Special Rour°d Q/ ',4d

justnacnt N_o. 605 ajuduged tat an

I - Z:~ -t zBesides the chanoe from nnobide w a fixed headquarters. the Carrier revised the hours of assi,unment

cieratioz°)lcar oi°L,anizat-l·rsalcJii~xcniust irt~wlN>can integral a1teranora tnow~Arork is ac:eompuscicu
as oposcd tea the mere transfer of a finite and moicum mount 0f'°WWfroni one shop toancftex.
Te Board oserved tat not every assignment of ~vork is tantamount to 4a transfer ofwork emanating
frorn an operational and organizational change. In .-1i4,ardN`,-). _504, the Board found insufficient
evidence of an car rgantalionaI change when a railroad eges in an action that dies
tit invove f. . . revamping systems or cnge in work flow or sorne other alteration ire te inethod
of accomplishing . ,vor~ . Finally, the Board held that an oroanizational change entails
sornethinkz more than the mere assigni-nent of work to a particular group of -Imployees, Although
,4 vi,ar,l A'Os, 503(b) and504 atternpted to lay down standards for applyin'o the langua.-ge in Atlicle 111,
Section 1. te enunciation of concepts and principles in those two decisions was confined tc, die
specillic Iacts in those cases.

On the 1087 broadly ruled 11hat

the Carrier has Nvide latilude to nia~e operational and oroanizational changes vvithout defining the
three adjectives which nicAify the terin "change" in Article 111, Section 1. In 4,,varti Vo!he
Carrier abolished a three-ierner briue and bui#c£ing gang haoxuartered On lip. The Carrier
`a'<ae 1

grad rest clnvs for- tote ricice and bulling, fan(.,. he Board wrote that a critic al iei:ir~r i~t each case is necessary to ". . , Pinpoint tire proper standard to use to etertraine vflic her -r-t opertiottal and oreanizationa< chanc~e occurred." Without articulating any standard, tie Board ,.vent on to declare that. "Insofar :mss the carriers have tainted wide discretion to me operational and organizational thanes. an oJeC?lve analysis requires that NkIdlatitde must exist to proeect the right ofthe carriers tC) take such operaticttal car ori!tii.autic~nal ehart,,cs." 'Ffie lord's analysis was self-confirning. In essence. the Board stated thl- definition of an operational or organizational change is an operational or oraaniztional change. 'The Board held that since =he Carrier has substantial discretion tot make operational and organizational changes. the same wide latitude must protect that discretion. It is 'Vident that the Board ~xas ?nc.tre concerned about the qnici 1;,ro quo in tire Job Stabilization Aareettterit rather than fratitina reasonable standard or principle for dotermining, what activity

constituted an operational car or(~,:tn>zatiot-taI e;hart~e. `tateCltt_leretitly. the Board presumptively

concluded that. inasmuch as the empl-yees receive protective benefits as a result of an operational or ~~c°ganxzatlorraI change, the C.`at-t-itt- must Cs-~ making n change that trieget-s those bCDefitS, NN11ile .'1;Vc1t'dA'o. p failed to articulate a delifinilion of an operational or organizational change, the decision is distinguishable from the case before us. In Ati=<.fl°(] No. ;, the Carrier abolished a £?an2 end established rtew gan;~ ~,vItit revisions to tlte,.~a~'s hours of assian3ent. reht days and headquarters. In this case. the Carrier acknowledges that i2 is rest abolishing any district tie «angs «rtannering with the stottioritv si<?vet-ned ,, ~ eitter the District J'ie ang or the SNstent Rail Gang A-Lt-eetatertts. FlierepOre. this Board concludes that the relevant standards (albeit, not necessarily the complete ct-iteri) for determining ,khether ',he Carrier's proposed :iction constituted an operational or

Sick o. 10 i; Award No. 18 BMWE v, UP
organizati=onal change are found in .Iii lard Nos,

No. 610?.

Pace I S

ad 504 of Special Boarfi of.4c~jnv;ineni

In this case, the Carrier proposes utilizing, existing car additional sys;eni rail pangs to

particiate in tic gang si=c>rk.

WAI work in concert with tire dkstrict tie gans. The Nvork in question is tie renewal and -hlcillary ride crossing and surfacing work. Tile work remains in discrete locations. The Carrier also acknwle<,,es that is is not en2ainin a transfer of woror a transfer of ctrioyees. The record is void of evidence that the flow of work will charge. The work wibe performed an the same manner that district tic gangs have perforntethe work in tile past except that the Carrier hopes to complete the work more quickly to rmniDnzC traffic congestion in busy rail corridors. The CaITier did not present any evidence that it is introducing new technology car revamping its method of accomplishing the work. A close exaLmation of the Carrier's proposal Scads to tire inescapable conc~usiorl that it merely wants to reassign work from one group o'e°npio ees to another (ins it did lit Aiifrrfl NO. 503(b)), as opposed to cIioaging in an Article III, Sector I operational car onzanizational chance. The evidence roving any change =s minuscule.
hherefore_ the record before gas does not contain sufficient evidence that the Carricr`
proposed action constitutes an operational ororganizationai c$ange according to the criteria yet forth
III -f 1 fI"~'. ~'`'(?>t, 30 307) and 504. :5 p.?c'~CI 'f~Cdd'ffx.`'i_I£?II??e-'17l i t2. fs05 >>tc td in those v4N o %I l~v~ards.
the decision must a restrictcd to the particular facts ofi~ach case. This Board cannot foresee all o
the potential changes that could hall the paranneter> cat Arti-°le J11, Section I of the February
7, 1965 .lob Stabilization Agreement.
Inasmuch as ire Board°s answer to the first issue in isutc is "No," v,,.e need not address or consider Issue Nos, 2 or ').
]-his Board etpwizes th,frt it chid :lot reach any decision,on work exc lusivity among district tic oanas and system rail L~angs =era the IMP. '~ str:~s fiat- n~tr°r-xz~ ~~,~3' ~t:~°

Division. AivartA`os. '99"` '. 5008. 3 008or Pi<hldc Lai4- BoardAVo,

our =urisdictien is rele-ate d to interpreting and applying, the February 7. 1965 Job Stabilization

-- :4 iiarA`o. -4. eater,

~oard g~otes that tie Carric a-raxscs a strong euitaHe argument. The Carrier subriits that

the action described in its December 5 . 2j?' )notice is nece-sst°~ co satis~y custorners by ininimizintie time tract is out cat-servicc.an busy rail ldnes. Nevertheless. this Board does not sit to disperase
equity, between the parties. Equity is bast left to the barZ~gaining table.
AWARD AND ORDER

I . Tae answer tea the first stipulated issue in. dispute is "No,"

Ta second stipulated issue in di.sute is Mot. T'e third s1ipariated issue in dispute is rr?oc=t.

dated; June 17, 200~

Rick VN'ehrli

Union Mernber

Donald Grifflin

Union Memer

Z~ John B. LaRocco
Neutral Member

John Hennecke
CarnerMernber

Me success of arbitration as a isuee resolutionarm in any

decisions rendered l-the
intelligent interpretation ~parties hve c°njidc:nce in the sysical it will work. Lack of conjulence by either side willgenerallr serve ioftustrate

lwppen to !heir case ~f it goes to arbitration. Mere must besomedegree

cffconsisteaacy in decisions in rarderfot° this predictability to he present.
This- ourta' is rnaacffiul c, f tic ne~,fr consistency andprediciability arid
has dil~gently warkecar over the yeui°s yea mat m`criiv ire the cecisiaans it has
rendered In an i~f

,Fa=1 tocrintrzira a degree qfconsistesacyy, the loard has

to be c:onsistene with our revius ecisaims, te principles that we have used to arrive at these decisions pare generally unanimously accepted by the members.

to
The oilgani:atiom recogm I ze the right of the carriers to make
fec°hnologicl, operational and orgyai.:fionl charr~gcs, and ire
considerution ofthe proteclive benefits provided by, this Agreement the
currier .sBzoll have the right to transfer istork- uncl gar lransftr employees
'' this Beard emplaasi--es that extriic evidence it l Me best evidence to resolve this lxrrticralar diclraatc. &triarsic es,iderac°c is prcibrativc tad rt litable u>Iaen axa aA~reerrnctta provision %s unclear mad when the rcord lacks arrpasr arbitral autlrtrritv sail Carl isIMe irr controversv9
not require lhe transfer qf arty= er,lcryees, it was the Carrier °e position

any district tie gangs is I Ikewise no