NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
7225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036/AREA CODE: 202-659-9320
WILLIAM N. DEMPSEY, Chairman hf. E. PARKS, VireChairman
 Ii. E. GREER, Director of Research 1. F. GRIFFIN, AJvtivistrative Secrrtary D. P. LEE, Grner.ICounsel


Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

 Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1224 - 19th Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 This will supplement our previous letters with which we fonaaided to you copies of Awards of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 There are attached copies of Awards Nos. 340 to 344 inclusive, dated December 18, 1972, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

                              --i

                          i


cc. Messrs. G. E. Leighty (10)
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye
        XH `C. Crotty (2) J. Berta S. Z. Placksin (2) R. W. Smith (2) T. A. Tracy (3) M. E. Parks J. E. Carlisle W. F. Euker T. F. Strunck

                                AWA.-2D NO. 3410

                                Case No. D1~4-21-SE


            SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Did the "change in a facet of the
              Carrier's operations" and the concurrent

              "rearrangement of forces" which occurred

              on March 13, 1970 at Ashdoan, Arkansas

              represent a technological, operational

              or organizational change as described in

              Article III, Section 1 of the 2/7/65 agree

              ment and as referred to in Interpretation

              2 thereof (page 11 of the agreed-to inter

              pretations)


                          and


              2. Is Foreman Roy E. Garman thereby entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of moving his mobile home (which contained his household and other personal effects) from Ashdown, Arkansas to Antlers, Oklahoma?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: For a number of years two District Gangs were head
 quartered at Ashdown, Arkansas, working the same
 territory. District Gang 225, a Patrol Gang, inspected the
 track and also made the minor repairs which it found to be
 needed. It consisted of a Foreman and an Assistant Foreman.
 District Gang 224, composed of a Foreman and from eight to
 twelve men, performed the heavier maintenance on the same
 territory.

 Effective March 16, 1970, Carrier changed the former operations with regard to patrolling and light maintenance by abolishing District Gang 225. It established a procedure by which District Gang 224 would thereafter perform that work, as well as the heavier maintenance work.
                                P.' TA.ZD NO. 3 511-0

                                Case No. 'TJ-2 1-SE


The change required a different organizational low
 structure in Gang 224. An additional Assistant Foreman posi
 tion was established. Instead of a Foreman and an Assistant
 Foreman patrolling and performiDg light maintenance, the work
 is now generally assigned to an Assistant Foreman and a
 Laborer.
 This new format constituted an operational and
 organizational change in Carrier's forces in this territory.
 The situation is not one in which work fell off and fewer
 employees were required--a matter not established in the
 record. Rather, a different organizational entity was used
 to do work long done before by another. Thus, the organiza
 tional structure of the forces on this territory has been
 substantially altered, and a different operating method has
 been instituted.
 Awards 7, 76, and others cited by Carrier do not
 hold that mere abolishment of positions constitute a techno
 logical, operational or organizational change. On the other
 hand, these Awards do not hold that because an abolishment is
 involved, it means that no operational or organj.zational change
 has occurred. This view was developed in Award 167, among
 others.
 Carrier also asserts that Claimant. could not be
 :held entitled to moving expenses since, as its letter of
 Febrvary 16, 1971, states
 ..,,Ssction 10 of t'ae T9ashington Job Pro
 tection Agreemont which is made applicable
 when certain technological, operational or
 organizational changes are involved, requires
 that the exact extent of the responsibility
 of the Carrier under provisions of that Sec
 tion, and the ways and means of transportation,
 shall be agreed upon in advance between the
 Carrier responsible and the organization of
          the employee affected... (Underlining added.)


This requirement was not fulfilled, according to Carrier. The organization observes that Carrier, having held that Claimant's move was not based upon an organizational or operational change, would not in any case have agreed upon the ways and means. The means employed were as economical as possible, it was said.

                          -2-

                                A? TAAD D, O .

                                Case No. 1·f7-21-SL


Moreover, the Organization notes that Page 11 of the Interpretations provides that a qualified employee is entitled to the benefits of Section 10 of the washington Agreement, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in said provision." The obligation in Section 10 (a) that the parties agree in advance about "the ways and means of transportation" is something "contrary," since it restricts an employee's right to the moving allowance authorized by the February 7 Agreement without any qualifications. That certainly holds good where no question is raised about the economics of the move or about a needless incurring of expense.

                        AWARD


          The Answer to the Questiors is Yes.


                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral Member


December/e, 1972 washington, D. C.

 -3-