PAR17ES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and MsLmshin Clarks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express 6.: Station E2~ioysus
 DISPUTE ) anc.
 Illinois Central Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS
 ° A1 ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate tho provisions of ihe
 February 7, 1965 AZree,.-snt., par;iculnrly Article
 1, Section 1 thereof, Article Vill and tha
 November 24, 1965 interpretation of the _ b-uary
 7, 1965 ASrccmnnt when, on inouary 27, 1966, it
 refused to accord to Clerk D. Vl. Forties -win
 exponse benefits provided therein?
 (2) Shah the Carrier be required to cc«DensM
 D. W. Forbes for expense of moving his household
 effects; traveling and living expenses for his
 family and pay for time off not to exceed five
 days involved in moving his place of residence
 from LaSalle, Illinois to Downs, Illinois, as
 provided ii: the February 7, 1965 Agreer;.ont <.s
 interpreted November 24, 1965?
 a
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The facts indicate that on August: 13, 1965, the Carrier abolished
 a position at La Sn11e, held by Cleric Egan. !he loiter d_splnced
 Clerk Prazen, who immediately displaced Lie Claimant. Hereafter,
 the Claimant displaced on a regular position <:t Bloomington, with-
 in the same seniority district, but approximately sixty miles distant.

 The question posed is whether the Claimant is entitled to roving
 expenses. In certain instances, Article III provides for an in;lementing aLree-
 ment and Article V of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, depicts the con
 ditions ditions under which moving expenses and separation allowances are required.

 Under the facts presented herein, we do not consider the job abolishment at La Salle a technological, operational or organizational change. See Award No. 7.


            The answer·to questions (1) and (2) is in the negative.


                        r ,

                        geut-ral Timber

                        I


DATED: Washington, D. C.
        November 17, 1969