COOPERATING RAILWAY LACC R
G. E. Leighty · Chairman
 Railway Labor Building · Suite 804
 400 First Street, N.W. · Washington, D. C. 20001
 Code 202 RE 7-1541

 John J. McNamara · Trczsurer
 Fifth Floor, VFW Puilaing
 200 Maryland Ave., N.E. · Washington, D. C. 20GJ2
 Code 202 547-7550

 Mr. C'. L. Dennis
 Mr./H. C. Crotty Mr/ A. R. Lowry Mr. C. J. Chamberlain Mr. R. W. Smith t

 Dear Sirs and Brothers:

 June 27.1969

 SUBJECT: Disputes Committee No. 605
 February 7, 1965 Agreement
 Awards No. 106 to 118 inclusive
 Signalmen Cases

 I am enclosing herewith a copy of Awards No. 106 to 118 inclusive which were signed by Referee Zumas on June 24, 1969 in a group of Signalmen cases. We discussed several of these cases with Referee Zumas and the Chairmen of the Three Carriers Conference Committees. The Carriers reserve the right to write a Dissent in connection with Award No. 107, We expect to write one Dissent in connection with Awards No. IIS, IIb, 117 and IIB, all of which relate to the sixteen (Ib) hours' notice in cases of emergencies. We believe the Referee is completely wrong in connection with these four (4) Awards.



r
 Chari n
 Five Cooperating Rail y LaborLabor Organizations

 Enclosures

 cc: L. P. Schoene
 Frank Lynch


              Sfi:GJP.L BOAR)) OFfnJtl:;:~'f·in?ui~,`_2?O~CUS


PARTIES ) Western Pacific Railroad Company
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman

 QUESTION
            AT ISSUE: Does the February 7, 1965 Agrcc m=nt give the Carrier the right to transfer an employe anti his position, including all duties unchanged, from one city to another within the sa;;z~ seuicrity district, or must tl:!: transferred position be made available by bulletin to senior employes not involved in the transfer?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: As of January 1, 1966 Carrier moved the hcadqa:rters o` a
 newly combined Si.i;rual and Corraunicatiora I:ci.cr,.:..ent fro-,
 San Francisco to Sacramento. This tra nsfer t;,a n:c,do oithi.n
 the same seniority district. In connection with ti:.: r:ovc
 Carrier intended to transfer three protected Si.c,n:tl D::p.art:::c;._ cmployes and
 their positions with duties unchanged from San Francisco to S_,cramcrto. Two
 of the employer transferred with their work to Sacramento, and the third
 elected to exercise his seniority and went elsewhere. That vacancy was
 bulletined to all signalmen.

 The Organization contends that under the circumstances new positions were created at Sacramento and these positions had to be bulletined as new positions under the terms of the schedule a.-reer;ent.

 Carrier contends that under the te~.;s of the February 7 Agreement it had the right to transfer work end employes in the same seniority district. Carrier further contends that new positions were not created, they were transferred from San Francisco to Sacramento.

 Under the terms of the February 7 Agreement it is clear that a Carrier has the right to transfer work and employer. Section 1 of Article III provides in part:

      "The organizations recognize the right of the carriers to make technological, operational and organizational changes, and in consideration of the protective benefits provided by this Agreement the carrier shall have the right to transfer work and/or transfer employees throughout the system which do not require the crossing of craft lines. k ~~ ^."


With respect to such protected employer affected by such transfer, the November 24 Interpretations state that "'·'· ^ '·'· crpoyes affected by such change will be oer;nitted to exercise their seniority in conformity with existing; seniority rules." (Underscoring added.)
                    _ !·:';.;:d ;'o. 1( i

                                            Case '.:o. :;C:-2-,·


                        _ 2 _


This language has the effect of giving the e:.,,>7.oyc the right to transfer with the position, or elect not to do so s.t:d c;:crci.sc his seniority under tire e:;i.sti.n3 seniority rules.

 In order to sustain the Organizati.on'r position, such language would have to be construed to require the protected y·a>lcye to exercise his seniority whenever a transfer of work was effected.

 This in no way in inconsistent or in derogation o, the existing seniority or bulletin rules of the Organization,.

                        Ar,r

                        ,..,RD


Under the terms of the February 7 Agreem2nt C:!rrier has the ri·,i:t to transfer employer and work within the same seniority di.stri.ct without the necessity of bulletining the transferred position if the employe elects to transfer with the position

                t/ y ~~ ~;i .G~'j(~

                , ` Nicholas li. Zu.t~;,~

                Neutral h:ember~


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 June 24, 1969