P.".:;'u1BS ) The Atchison, Topeka ., nd Saucy Fe .,~:ilsray Cc-.?nay
 TO ) and
 DIS`ruT ) Brotherhood of Railway and Stca.:nsliin Clc:~.a, cre--fat
 Handlers, Express and Station E:nploy2s
 QL CS i :0:;
 r .
 AT ISSL,:. .rs it <. require-':,ant of Article '.I:. Of :-eda tion







station clerical employes from Corrith, 711inois,
 to various points on the Santa Fe System wh oa .need
 for their service exists?
 OPINION
 OF BOAFD: Due to changes inaugurated by the ~epub'ic Carloadinj and
 Distributing Company and C1ipp=r Caricading CG-,y^y _
 handling chair omn `rei~ht, a large surp_us o° protected
 Group 3 station clerical employees were acquired by the
 Carrier. The Organization, aware of tee cost invo'_v;:d to
 the Carrier, consented to execute an i^p1e-a:ain~ `--rye.^= nt o:, Se-,Wece=
 `13, 1965, despite the GroanlZatiOnaS allE.';Sat1G.^. Of the "absence of any
 technological, operational or organizational C::&::gr:5."

 Thereafter, on April 7, 1966, the Carrier Z.-in served a notice on the Organization recu_stir..' it to enter into anct':er ?~:~lementing agreement predicated on to surplus of protected Group 3 station clerical employees at Cor:aith, the Organization, in substance, refused to enter into such impieme^,ting agreem:ar,t on the ground, as previously mentioned, that the Carrier was not involved in any technological, operational and organizational cwanZ2s.

 At this juncture, we believe it would be materially helpful to set forth an agreed upon position by the parties hereon. _nay reco-nize that soma confusion may have inadvertently developed dun to the initial haste in the preparation of tie February 7, 1965 A-TcC`:=nt, rasuitin in a careless combination of t;oo separate provisions ',._c..in !ll =II, Section 1. They are, ti;arefcre; in accord that a more careful phraseology of the conjunctive t::ou~ht expressed therein could in cicate t`:at Carriers need not b2 engaged in a technological, operational ..r, d Grga-.i.,ational change in order to require Organizations to antes into an ~'=?=ew ntir.p a~areem2nt. Hence, it is accepted that the Carrier sh-nil have t;.e r~c;a to transfer work and/or transfer employees throughout the system., where
 such do not _eamra the crossir.l- of ,._c:xt _.._. , _.. c o::m._.:_at_cn o= the protective~benefits providod by this r.trec ~::t.


its refusal to e:.ccute all ir.nlc:non ring recl..oa_y nr.:,.. ~(, ,.._.,. ,..:_
 :" `_
 Carrier was not involved in a tec::no:o~rcal, o=cratlonal aad'cr~a^).re-
 tion:;1 c;.a.nCe, necessarily most: be rejceted. hence, tile r....:t c,:. s t_o;
 1S directed at the last sentence COnt.la::d In SCCt_OC: 1 Of .-.--=.u.-C 11T.
 The Carrier's reason for transferring these Surplus cw .~ioyoes ca based

 upon a nead to "provide a force adceuae to ;,.vet to Carrier `s recuire
 ,_
 cents. This latter phrase was ori,,~i.naliy ccr._~.in;d in S_..,. .-.on Crafts

AgrOC'nlent of September 25, 1964. IC ).S, LuU'rthOY1^.OrC, UrgCd Dy v.2
 (.'crY10r~t(13t 2 pr1T:.^ facie case for such need has b::W eSi:abl i5::c^.d.
 FienCe, the rc' 15 7.mi>OS.^G upon the O:SaslZa.t).Oil an Ob11_-;r.t20a to e:LeCUte
 such 2n lalpi2^ei1t111g a3I:f.^ ^ ent. In SUJSta::Cc., the Carrier argues that
 the record is barren of any challenge by the Crganiz<.ticn directed at
 the Carrier's need for such force.

 In our view, having disposed of the question associated . with tile technological operational and organizaaion ai c.`:=;;: , tile Carrier has demonstrated a requirement for an adequate force. Pence, the organization, under the facts alleged herein, is required to enter into an i,aplenentino agreement.
                      Award


          The question is answered in the afEir:iiative.


                      /Murray DI. Roht:an

                      I/ Neutral M'._--mber


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 ' March7, 1969