PARTIES ) St. Louis Southwestern Railway Lines
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: Due to the abolishment of a position,
 N. F. Leach and J. D. Bradshaw, in order
 to retain protected employee status,
 were forced to displace on positions
 requiring change of residence. Did
 Carrier violate Article III, Section 1
 when it refused to allow these employees
 moving expenses, traveling expenses of
 themselves and families, living expenses
 of themselves and families, and five
 working days' pay in making transfer to
 their positions? Also, is Carrier in
 violation of Article IV, Section 1 in
 refusing to allow these employees the
 preservation of compensation provided
 therein?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: There was an undisputed decline in business and
 a deficit at the agency at Kingsland, Arkansas. Con
 sequently the agency was closed on August 1, 1965, by
 authorization of the Arkansas Commerce Commission and the work
 was shifted to another station. The position of Claimant Leach,
 Agent-Telegrapher at Kingsland, was abolished. In order to
 retain his protected status he displaced Claimant Bradshaw at
 Stuttgart, Arkansas, who in turn displaced another man in order
 to retain his protected status. Since both we:ce required to
 change their residences, they seek the benefits specified in
 the Interpretations under Article III.

 With respect to the second issue, it is acknowledged that these employees are entitled to preservation of compensation.


      The issue remaining to be determined is whether the closing of an agency station and the abolishment of the position there, with the work transferred to another agency, constituted a technological, organizational or operational change. The Interpretations provide on Page 11 that when Carrier "makes a change such as described in Article III, Section 1," and an employee consequently is required to move his place of residence in order to retain his protected status, he receives the kinds of benefits sought by Claimants.


. Earlier Awards of this Committee, beginning
      with No. 7, have held that abolition of a position per se, as

      for economic reasons, is not a technological, operational or

      organizational change. The Organization distinguishes the

      facts in this case on the ground that not only was a position

      abolished, but also an agency was closed with the resulting

      transfer of one agency's work to another agency.


      Thus the question is a factual one. Was there an operational or organizational change requiring Claimant Leach to move in order to retain his protected status? While there plainly were cogent economic reasons for closing the Kingsland agency and shifting its work, this did constitute an operational and organizational change. The work was no;:, done by a different organizational entity. In connection with the change the employee's position was abolished. It could not have been abolished but for the operational and organizational change made in the way that the work was thereafter performed. Consequently the specified benefits are due both Claimants who were required to move to retain protected status.


      Although in its sul:mission Carrier contests some of the moneys claimed, the record does not disclose that the matter was discuss:d on the property. No grounds exist for challenge no;,:, except that, in accordance with the specific terms o= the Inter preta=ions, five working days is the limit of actual wage loss to which either Claimant is entitled.

                          Award No. 220

                          Case No. TCU-3°-W


          A W A R D


The answer to the Questions is Yes. However, with respect to actual wage loss, payment shall not exceed five days.

              Milton rriedman

              Neutral Member


Washington, D. C. November /6 , 1970.

 t~ y ~/_" ia~-/~ o