PARTIES ) Illinois Central Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 QUESTION Is Welder B. K. Golden entitled to "the
 AT ISSUE: benefits contained in Section 10 of the
 Washington Agreement notwithstanding any
 thing to the contrary contained in said
 provisions and shall have five working
 days instead of the 'two working days'
 provided by Section 10 (a) of said 2%g_ree
 ment" (Item 2 of agreed-to interpretation
 of Article III of the February 7, 1965
 Agreement) because of his change of resi
 dence on November 2, 1967 made necessary
 when the Carrier effected an organiza
 tional change effective June 2, 1967 which
 was described by Division Engineer H. D.
 LeRoy as follows:
 "The welding position at Dyersburg,
 Tennessee was abolished and rebulletined
 at Covington, Tennessee which in effect
 only changed your headquarters from Dyers
 burg to Covington, a distance of approximately
 38 miles, both of which are located on the
 Fulton District, Tennessee Division."

 OPINION The welder's position in Gang No. 323, occupied
 OF BOARD: by claimant, had been headquartered at Dyersburg,
 Tennessee. On June 2, 1967, it was abolished and rebulletined on June 5 at Covington, some 38 miles away. The position remained in the same seniority district.

 Claimant bid the bulletined position and went to Covington. He then claimed the benefits of Section 10 of the Washington Agreement, pursuant to Section 2, page 11, of the Novemher-24, 1965, interpretations. According to the Employes, Carrier had made an organizational change, not requiring an implementing agreement, and Claimant was obliged to charge his residence to retain protected status.

Carrier contend:, that abolishment of a position is not an organizational change, citing P.ward No. 7 of this Committee. Further, it was said, Claimant could have Cispiaced a welder's helper in Dyersburg and therefore wass not required to move. Carrier also argued that no move was required, since the seniority territory on which Claimant worked was unchanged, and it was only the location of the headquarters which had been shifted.

 Award No. 7 is distinguishable. That daait merely with outright abolishment of a position. In this casc, the re-establishment of the same position in a different location does represent an organizational chance by Carrier; the arolishment was merely the technical procedure for changing the format of the organization. Organizational changes can occur within a seniority district as well as among different districts.

 7fiat the same 71 miles of track continue to constitute the district does not affect the question of a chango in residence. The location of-. Claimant's headquarters, to which he regularly reports, is the relevant consideration. Since Section 3 on page 11 of the interpretations does not prohibit the benefits of Section 10 of the Washington Agreement when the location of the work exceeds 30 miles, those benefits are deemed to be appropriate.

 With respect to Carrier's contention that Claimant could have displaced a welder's helper in Dyersburg, Claimant would thereby have lost his guaranteed compensation as a welder. The Agreement does not require him to make such a choice, for it protects his October 1, '1964, rate, unless he voluntarily exercises his seniority to obtain a lower position. Claimant chose to exercise his seniority to obtain a welder's position, although at a more distant location in order to protect his compensation, and became entitled to the benefits sought.

                      A W A R D


            The answer to the Question is "Yes."


                          M ltoFrian, Neutral Member


                                  eam Dated: Washington, D . C.

        September/o, 1969


                          _2-