PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight
 TO ) Handlers,Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Western Maryland Railway Company
 QUESTION 1. Did the Carrier violate the February 7, 1965 Agreement
 AT ISSUE: when it refused to make an implementing agreement and
 allow a separation allowance for Mr. Howard E. White when
 it transferred his position to Hagerstown, Maryland from
 Baltimore, Maryland, effective April 1, 1972?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Effective April 1, 1972, Claimant's position as Secretary to
 the Chief Engineer was transferred from 3altimore to Hagerstown
 -- in the same seniority district -- a distance of approximate-
 ly seventy-five miles. Claimant elected not to transfer nor to exercise his
 seniority; instead, requested a lump sum separation allowance pursuant to
 Article V of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

 The Organization premised the instant Claim on the ground that the Carrier violated Rule 27 of the Schedule Agreement, as well as the February 7, 1965 Agreement, by failure to enter into an Implementing Agreement -- due to transfer of work.

 At the outset, it should be noted that Article V of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, in substance, provides for a lump sum separation allowance in the event "an implementing agreement has been made." Thus, the issue before us is whether the Carrier was required to negotiate and execute an Implementing Agreement.

 The instant matter is not a case of first impression before our Board. On numerous occasions, we have interpreted Article II, Section 1 -failure to retain or obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights --. See Award Nos. 39, 96, 103, 157 and 266. On other occasions, we have discussed the requirements for an Implementing Agreement pursuant to Article III. The essence of the various awards interpreting Article III, have expounded and reiterated the principle that an Implementing Agreement was not required when work only was transferred within the same seniority district. See Award Nos. 40, 42, 43, 106, 124, 189, 191, 206, 216, 219, 248, 276, 284 and 291.

 In view of our previous rulings, it is our considered judgment that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
                                        Case No. CL-58-E


                      Award:


            The answer to the question is in the negative.


                              y /

                              r .


                            P rray . . Rohman !Neutral 4ember


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 April 18, 1973

        .r f