PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight
 TO ) Handlers,Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Western Maryland Railway Comps-y
 QUESTION 1. -Did the Carrier violate the rules of the February 7, 1965
 AT ISSUE: Agreement when it refused to make an implementing agree
 ment and allow a separation allowance for Mrs. A. Celeste
 Condy and Mrs, K. K. Wyatt, when it abolished their
 positions at Baltimore, Maryland and transferred the work
 to Hagerstown, Maryland on April 1, 1972?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Effective April 1, 1972, telephone switchboards at Baltimore
 and Cumberland were removed and the operator positions
 abolished. Upon abolishment of their positibns, Claimants
 elected not to exercise their seniority rights to a position at Hagerstown -
 a distance of approximately seventy-five miles from Baltimore. Thereafter, the
 Organization filed the instant Claim alleging that the Carrier violated the
 February 7, 1965 National Agreement, by failure to enter into an Implementing
 Agreement. 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. Hence, the Organization's thrust herein is to the effect that
 Carrier was required to negotiate an Implementing Agreement.

 In support of said argument, the Organization alleges that the Carrier made "--substantial operational and organizational changes in transferring all telephone switchboard operations to Hagerstown, Maryland, on April 1, 1972, and refused to enter into an implementing agreement to provide for the work transfer and protecting benefits for the adversely affected employees."

 In turn, the Carrier rejected the Organization's contention that an operational and organizational change had been affected. Instead, it alleged that, "the result was accomplished by utilizing the capabilities of the existing system rather than introducing any new technologies."

 In essence, the Carrier contends that the abolishment of the positions herein was a result of a sharp decline in business; therefore, it caused a significant reduction in the number of telephones and in the telephone service required. Furthermore, Claimants could have displaced at Hagerstown -a failure to obtain a position available in the exercise of seniority rights -Article II, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. In addition, the instant dispute is concerned solely with a normal abolishment of positions, without any technological, operational or organizational change; hence, an Im-
 Award No. 347
 Case No. CL-59-E

 plementing Agreement was not required.

 Thus, the nub of the Organization's argument is predicated upon the fact that where work only is transferred, the Carrier is required to enter into an Implementing Agreement. Our Board has consistently adhered to the principle that Article III, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, does not require an Implementing Agreement where the transfer of work only is involved. See Award Nos. 40, 42, 43, 106, 124, 189, 191, 206, 216, 219, 248, 276, 284 and 291.

 It is, therefore, our considered judgment that the Carrier did not violate the Agreeement.

 Dated: Washington, D.

Award:

 The answer to the question is in the negative.

 urray Rohm:
 7-77 L,

 Neutral Member