SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST:-2172 NO. 605
.PARTIES ) The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway CoMpany
 TO TIE ) and
 DISPLTB ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 ISSUE: Claim of the General Ccmmittec of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on
 The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail
 way Company on behalf O= R. E. Swecker
 for payment of reimbursement of moving
 expenses amounting to $48.05, which was
 the cost of gasoline used in pick-up
 truck and automobile in moving from
 San Bernardino, California, to Winslow,
 Arizona.
 OPINION The basic question is ~,7hether a force reduction
 OF BOARD: is a technological, operational or organ.zational
 change entitling an employee, whose position is
 consequently abolished, to moving expenses when he displaces a
 junior employee at a distant location.

 The import of the Employes' argument is 'chat waenever there is any force reduction the organizational structure has changed and, under Item 2 on page 11 of the interpretations of November 24, 1905, moving expenses are payable. carrier contends that "bona fide labor cutbacks necessitated by immediate or anticipated decreased work loads" do not come within the definition of operational, organizational and technological changes.

 If "operational" or "organizational" Chcnges were intended to cover something as --frequent and ordinary as a reduction in force, there are few changes to which such an er_pansiva definition would not apply. Virtually every action initiated by Carrier affecting personnel could then be so described. In fact, instead of using such general terms as "operational" and "organizational," the February 7 Agreement and the interpretations would

                                    Case :o. SG-27-W


have done batter to list the rare exceptions.

 Without attempting to specify limits w.thin which changes can be construed as "operational" or
 'o~,~a,_i'zational, " It is apparent that an ordi ncxy reduCton of io-Ces due t0 a fluctuation in business does not fit t-1e de`in ition . what occurred in this case did change the n_rber of e"ployecs in San Bernardino and did cause a shift when Cla imant d_-placed another employee at Winslcw, but this cannot be cCsc::= ed as effecting any substantial alteration in Carrier's operational or organizational structure.

 Award NO. 7 Weak. with Si·.'1E11~n- CirCL:a.lStenCC-S e:='2C; held that what occurred was "neither a technologic=:--, o-cga niza= tional nor operational change within the meaning and- int-C-nt of Section 1 of Article III of the February 7, 1965 1._cdi C:.tioi 2~cr.':'eement." The Employes have taken strong exception to this e_nu --o Awards based upon it, but there is no reason to hold that :ward No. 7 failed to apply the Agreement and Interpretations accurately.

                        A 11 A R D


              Claim denied.


                          Milton Friedman Neutral Member


Washington, D. C1
 December g , 1969

                          _2_ .