The Claimants were furlo,.ighed Laborers at Tampa, Florida. After discontinuing Cab Suppl~-sn positions at Tampa, the Carrier agreed to grant the Claimants t== protective benefits of Article I, Section 1 of the September 25, 1964 National Agreement, beginning December 11, 1991. The Claimants were drawing dismissal allowances in accordance with Article I, Section 6. Both Claimants filed applications to indicate their interest in transferring to other locations when the opportunity might arise.
In January 1993, the Carrier had two vacancies for Laborers at Waycross, Georgia (275 miles from Tampa) after all furloughed employees at that location had been recalled. As a result, the Carrier wrote to the Claimants in pertinent part as follows:
The Claimants, despite their earlier expressed interest in permanent positions at "all" locations, did not wish to transfer to Waycross. Faced with the alternative of losing protective benefits, they nevertheless reported to and commenced work at Waycross, under protest.
Article I, Section 6 of the September 25, 1964 Agreement incorporates Section 7 of the Washington Job Protection Agreement, of which paragraph (j) reads in part as follows: Form 1 Award No. 13009
The Carrier also refers to moving expense allowances in the September 25, 1964 Agreement, which could be available to the Claimants in relation to their reassignment to Waycross.
The Organization contends that Rule 23 (f) has been superseded and is no longer in effect, referring to Memorandum Agreement 8012-91 between the Carrier and the Organization. The Board finds, as pointed out by the Carrier, that this Memorandum Agreement is confined to "promotions" and performance of "extra and relief work, 11 and thus there is no basis to consider that Rule 23 (f) is no longer in effect.
The Board finds that the Carrier is attempting to combine two different concepts which are not compatible. As argued by the organization, Rule 23 (j) provides an opportunity for a furloughed employee to accept a position elsewhere, but it clearly does not require the employee to do so. This is borne out by the provision that such a transfer from a home location is to be "without expense to the company, 11 implying, of course, that the employee must accept the cost of such relocation in accepting this opportunity. To this, the Carrier argues that the moving expense provisions of the September 25, 1964 Agreement could be made available and thus convert the move into a mandatory one. The difficulty with this is that Rule 23 (j) says what it says, and it cannot be altered simply by an offer to provide moving expense applicable to other situations. Form 1 Award No. 13009
Instances involving the loss of protect=:-e benefits by failure to accept another position are ne subject :f many Awards. Such Awards, many of them cited by the :arrier, involve situations where seniority rights may extend to other locations; the question of relocation occurs at the time of the "transaction," especially the transfer of work from one location to another; special provisions of an implementing agreement; or where the refusal is in relation to a position where no relocation would be required. Thus, the circumstances here are clearly distinguishable. Rule 23 (j) provides a benefit for employees if they wish to transfer without expense to the Carrier. WJPA Sections 7(g) and (j) in combination state that return to work from furlough is not mandatory if it requires, as here, a change in place of residence. Thus, there is no basis to terminate protective benefits under these circumstances.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.