AWARD NO. 504 CASE NO. SG-46-W by communication technicians represented by the Organization, these employees continue to repair EOT devices by replacing defective components with rebuilt or new parts.'
The Carrier's procedural defense was that it had engaged in a transfer of work pursuant to an operational change and thus, any controversy had to be submitted to this Board which has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement.' More specifically, the Carrier argued that it was operationally feasible to transfer all microprocessor digital electronic board repair work into the Council Bluffs Shop, the sole location of specialized equipment and employees with the requisite skills to accomplish the work. The Carrier also concluded that an implementing agreement pursuant to Article III was unnecessary inasmuch as no signal employees were adversely affected by the transfer of work
The Organization progressed the alleged scope rule violation claims to Public Law Board No. 4716. In June, 1994, the Public Law Board deferred any decision on the merits until this Board could determine whether or not it had primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. [See Public Law Board No. 4716, Award No. 52 (Wesman).] As a result, the Organization presented the Question at Issue to this Board.
' The Carrier also contended that the Signalmen did not prove an exclusive right to perform the disputed work inasmuch as only communication employees on the former Texas and Pacific and Chicago and Eastern Illinois territories are represented by the organization herein. Employees who inspect, test and repair EOT devices at the other shops are represented by the IBEW.
' Although the Carrier clearly contends that it implemented a transfer of work pursuant to an operational change as specified in Article ELL Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement, the record does not contain any notice from the Carrier, at the time it assigned the work to Council Bluffs communication technicians, that it was invoking its rights under the Job Stabilization Agreement.
Article DI, Section 1 permits the Carrier to introduce and implement technological, operational and organizational changes. The first sentence of Article III, Section 1 clearly ties the Carrier's right to transfer work to a technologocial, operational or organizational change. To trigger our jurisdiction, the transfer of work must constitute or be associated with one or more of these three types of changes. While the drafters of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement did not precisely define these three types of changes, Article III certainly contemplates that an operational change constitutes something more than the mere assignment of a specific task to a group of employees. In this case, the Carrier simply assigned the work of repairing the microprocessor digital electronic boards to employees represented by the 113EW at Council Bluffs. The Carrier did not adequately articulate how this mere assignment of work was associated with an operational change. Also, the acquisition of specialized equipment, standing alone, is not tantamount to a change of the magnitude contemplated by Article III of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
The Carrier cannot contend that every assignment of work is a transfer of work emanating from an operational change. There is no evidence in the record of a revamping of systems or a change in work flow or some other alteration of the method of accomplishing EOT repair work.
This Board need not definitively define what activities constitue technological, operational or organizational change. We narrowly hold that the record before us does not contain sufficient evidence of such a change.