PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad

 QUESTIONS 1. Did those certain changes which the Carrier made at the
 AT ISSUE: General Offices, Denver, Colorado, effective November 21,
 1966, constitute technological, operational and/or organi
 zational changes under the provisions of Article III of
 the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 2. Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement, particularly Article III thereof, when it
 instituted those certain changes at the General Offices
 at Denver, Colorado without giving proper notice and
 negotiation of an appropriate implementing agreement?
 3. Shall the Carrier be required to give proper notice and
 negotiate an appropriate implementing agreement to provide
 for:


                    positions involved.

                    (d) The rates of pay.

                      (e) The application of the benefits provided in Article IV of the February 7, 1965 Agreement to employes who are affected by the transfer of work.


                4. Shall the Carrier be required to compensate those employes involved in or affected by the changes instituted at the General Offices at Denver, Colorado, effective November 21, 1966, and accord those employes the full allowance and benefits prescribed in the February 7, 1965 Agreement?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: On November 21, 1966, the Carrier effected a transfer of three
 positions from Seniority District No. 7 (Traffic Department) to
 Seniority District No. 11 (Transportation Department). Both
 Seniority Districts are located in the same building in Denver
 and such transfer was accomplished without any change in the work, rates of pay, or
 hours. Rule 19(a) of the Schedule Agreement, granted the incumbents the option to
 follow the transferred work or remain in their seniority district. The Claimant
 herein elected to remain in Seniority District No. 7, whereas the other two employees
 followed their work and did not suffer any loss. The Claimant, however, did sustain
 a reduction in compensation when he exercised his seniority to a lower rated
 position in District No. 7.
                                            Award No. 216

                                            Case No. CL-39 -W


Che thrust of the Organiza,-on's contentLOn i.s bottomed on Article III, Section 1, of the February 7, L965 National Agreement, as well as the November 24, 1965 Interpretations. In our view, a careful analysis of the submissions, as wel.i as the effective Agreement, has COnVinLed us that the instant dispute is closely analogous to our Award No. 40. Hence, it is our considered opinion that the Carrier was not required to enter into an implementing agreement.

 A subsidiary issue flows from Claimant's exercise of seniority to a lower rated position when he elected to remain in Seniority District No. 7. The Carrier concedes that Claimant was adversely affected and placed in a worse position as to compensation. However, it alleges that a higher rated position of Ticket Clerk was advertised and assigned to a junior employee. In our view, under the peculiar circumstances evidenced herein, the facts are too meager for us to conclude whether Article IV, Section 4, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, is applicable. Hence, it is our opinion that Claimant is entitled to have his guarantee preserved at the adjusted rate of the position which he held prior to the change. Nevertheless, upon the effective date of the instant Award, Claimant, henceforth, will be,required to comply with Article IV, Section 4·

 We deem it essential to add a further comment predicated upon several statements expressed in the Carrier's submission. We have, previously, indicated that a Carrier may transfer work across seniority lines without an implementing agreement. See our Award Nos. 43 and 124. Contrari-wise, where a permanent transfer of employees across seniority lines is contemplated, an implementing agreement is required.

                        AWARD:


            The answer to Question Nos. 2 and 3 is in the negative.


The answer to Question Nos. 1 and 4 is in the affirmative and Claimant shall be entitled to the difference in pay between $22.38 and $23.39 per day, as adjusted, pursuant to the facts described in paragraph 1 above.

 After the effective date of Award No. 216, Claimant will be required to comply with Article IV, Section 4, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

                7. , ,~`V ED


                      ray M. Ro upan

                      utx4l Member


Dates: Washington, D. C. `
      July 8, 1970