AWARD NO. 3 co

Case No. TCU-69-W

PARTIES ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway,Company
TO THE: ) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Due to their positions being abolished,
or due to being displaced on their posi
tions as a result of the abolishment of
another position, R. E. Anderson and V. L.
Payne, in order to retain their protected
employee status, were forced to displace
on positions requiring a change in residence.
Did Carrier violate Article III, Section 1
when it refused to allow them all moving
expenses and five working days' pay in
making transfer to their new positions?

2. Does the abolishment of positions, made possible through the discontinuance of certain trains, and/or reduction of business at certain stations, constitute operational or organizational changes within the meaning of Article III?

OPINION

OF BOARD: Both Claimants were displaced due to the abolition of a position. Pursuant to Award No. 7 and succeeding Awards, abolition of a position is not an operational or organizational change, and moving expenses therefore are not allowable.

AWARD

The Answer to the Questions is No.

~c- t I'z «z~

Mi ton Friedman

Neutral Member

Dated: May «, 1972

Washington, D. C.