NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19857
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(J. F. Nash and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the Property of
( Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Debtor
STAT E·fEENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (CL-7121)
that:
(a) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties effective May
1, 1955, as revised, when it abolished all clerical positions (Group ;r~1) at Manchester, New York,
the duties and/or work of positions coring under said Agreement, and
(b) Due to this violation on the part of the Carrier various Employes
were furloughed on account of no more clerical positions (Group ?P1) available at
Manchester, N.Y., and
(c) Due to this violation on the part of the Carrier, Mrs. Hary B.
Warner, made a displacement on position in Buffalo, :few York, in the same seniority district over o
(d) Under Rule 62(b) Mrs. Mary B. Warner requested reimbursement for
moving expenses totaling two hundred (200) dollars, and
(e) Carrier shall now be required to reimburse Mrs. Mary B. Warner the
sum of two hundred (200) dollars for moving expenses.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim "(a)" alleges a violation of the "Scope" Rule of the
Agreement. That Claim has been fully considered by this
Board (Award 19833) and for the reasons stated therein, the Claim is dismissed.
Claim "(b)" specifies that a number of employees were furloughed " ; on
account of no more clerical positions (Group ,P1) available at Manchester, N.Y. ,.."
Although Claim "(b)" is dismissed because it refers to a "violation" by
the act of abolishing positions, it appears obvious (from a consideration of
Awards dealing with the July 1, 1970 action of the Carrier) that a number of employees were, in fact
19835).
Regarding Claim "(c)", the record, in its entirety, establishes that
'laimant made a displacement in Buffalo, N.Y., in the same seniority district as
.ianchester, N.Y. and that the distance involved is approximately 100 miles. However, Claim "(c)
abolishing positions.
Award Number 19901 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19857
The basic issue here ("(d)" and "(e)") deals with the Claimant's request
for reimbursement for moving expenses totaling $200.00, under Rule 62(b) of the
Agreement which states:
"Employees exercising seniority rights to new positions or
vacancies which necessitate a change of residence will receive
free transportation for themselves, dependent members of their
families, and household goods, on the lines of the Lehigh Valley
when it does not conflict with state or federal laws, but free
transportation of household effects under this circumstance need
not be allowed more than once in a twelve-month period
...."
On August 24, 1970, Claimant advised Carrier that she had been awarded
a position in Buffalo, New York and stated:
"I am entitled to expenses and/or cost of moving my household
goods from Manchester, N.Y. to Buffalo, N.Y. under Rule 62."
In response to that notification, the Carrier stated:
"I do not concur with you that the rule cited supports your
demand in this instance and it is therefore denied as without
merit."
Further, the Carrier stated that if there was merit to the demand made,
Claimant failed to support it with an itemized list of expenses incurred.
On January 12, 1971, the Carrier denied Claimant's Appeal,
"...
for
the same reasons as stated ...under date of October 6, 1970."
In March of 1971 the matter was appealed to the Director of Labor Relations. He replied that the
contained no dates nor amounts of claims nor any evidence to substantiate an existing claim. Further
within a Seniority District which was necessary for any employee, if they desire
to continue to be employed. Carrier stated that Rule 62 was not and is not intended nor interpreted
within the same District.
A number of months later, the Organization submitted to the Carrier a
March 29, 1971 receipt' written in longhand, for $200.00 for moving household goods
from Manchester, New York to West Seneca, New York. The receipt does not identify
the recipient as a mover, nor does it contain any breakdown of the charge.
The Board is unable to find support in the Agreement for Carrier's
assertion that Rule 62(b) does not apply to moves within the same Seniority District.
Award Number 19901 Page 3
Docket Number CL-19857
Rule 62(b) appears to support the Claimant's request. She was an employee who exercised a senior
It is not unreasonable to believe that such an exercise of seniority would "necessitate a change of
issues concerning the necessity to change residence, but it chose not to do so.
Under the circumstances, the Board is of the view that the Claimant's assertion
in August of 1970 that she was entitled to the benefits of Rule 62(b) placed that
item is issue; but nothing in Rule 62(b) suggests that a "change in Seniority District" is vital to
to be the necessity for change of residence.
After the matter was handled on the property, the Organization suggested,
in its Ex Parte Submission to this Board, that the portion of the rule which states
that transportation of household goods "...on the lines of the Lehigh Valley..."
has been ignored for years and that the moving of household goods has been performed
by a moving van rather than on the lines of the Carrier, as a matter of economics.
The Carrier disputes that assertion in its reply to the Employees' Ex
Parts Submission.
While it may be that movement of household goods by van is less expensive
an utilization of Carrier's equipment, this Board may not rewrite or reform the
Agreement. The matter of substitution for Carrier's equipment was not raised and/
or considered on the property and consequently the Board must disregard it at this
time. Thus, for purposes of this case, only the language of the agreement is before us.
In any event, the Board is of the view that the Claimant took appropriate
steps to comply with the Rule. The Claimant did not contract with an outside
source and then submit the bill to the Carrier. On August 24, 1970, she made her
declaratory statement that she was "...entitled to expenses and/or cost of moving
my household goods from Manchester, New York to Buffalo, New York under Rule 62."
That declaratory statement appears to be sufficient to place the Carrier on notice
that the Claimant desired movement of household goods on the lines of the Lehigh
Valley. Instead of furthering that matter, the Carrier stated that the rule did
not support her demand and it was denied as without merit. Thus, the issue is
framed as to what, if any, self-assistance the Claimant could then employ under the
circumstances.
The Board has considered Award 4A14337 (Perelson). In that dispute, a
Carrier was obligated to move household effects for an employee, but did not do so.
Because of that failure on the part of the Carrier, the Board held that the Claimant therein had the
to recover reasonable costs, thereof. The rationale of that Award appears sound,
and seems to apply to Claimant in this dispute. Thus, within a reasonable period
of time after Carrier's refusal to comply with the request (noting that Rule 62
es not contain a time limitation in which the move must be made), the Claimant
quay incur moving costs.
Award Number 19901 Page 4
Docket Number CL-19857
Upon a showing of reasonable cost expenditure, the Carrier should
reimburse the Claimant.
In this instance, the Board is reluctant to grant Claimant's request
for $200.00 for moving household goods based on the rather sketchy r-ceipt in
the record. However, the Board is of the view that Claimant can receive reimbursement for the move o
demonstrate, with more specific detail, the costs expended and show time of
move, basis for charges, etc. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the
parties to resolve the question of the specific amount due to Claimant for movement of household goo
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim (a), (b) and (c) are dismissed for the reasons set forth in
the Opinion.
Claim (d) and (e) are remanded to the parties as set forth in the
last paragraph of the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division'
ATTEST:
/I
f/WP.4d'Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August 1973.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 19901
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19857
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(J. F. Nash and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the Property of
( Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7121)
that:
(a) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties effective May
1, 1955, as revised, when is abolished all clerical positions (Group
ia)
at Manchester, New York, and turned this work over to the Yardmasters and others excepted from the A
the duties and/or work of positions coning under said Agreement, and
(b) Due to this violation on the part of the Carrier various Employes
were furloughed on account of no more clerical positions (Group
all)
available at
Manchester, N.Y., and
(c) Due to this violation on the part of the Carrier, Mrs. .Mary B.
Warner,, made a displacement on position in Buffalo, New York, in the same seniority district over o
(d) Under Rule 62(b) Mrs. Mary B. Warner requested reimbursement for
moving expenses totaling two hundred (200) dollars, and
(e) Carrier shall now be required to reimburse Mrs. Mary B. Warner the
sum of two hundred (200) dollars for moving expenses.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim "(a)" alleges a violation of the "Scope" Rule of the
Agreement. That Claim has been fully considered by this
Board (Award 19833) and for the reasons stated tberein, the Claim is dismissed.
Claim "(b)" specifies, that a number of employees were furloughed "..; on
account of no more clerical positions (Group I)1) available at Manchester,
N.Y.
..."
Although Claim "(b)" is dismissed because it refers to a "violation" by .
the act of abolishing positions, it appears obvious (from a consideration of
Awards dealing with the July 1, 1970 action of the Carrier) that a number of employees were, in fact
N.Y.
(see Awards 19833: 19834:
19835).
Regarding Claim "(c)", the record, in its entirety, establishes that
'laimant made a displacement in Buffalo,
N.Y.,
in the same seniority district as
.Lanchester,
N.Y.
and that the distance involved is approximately 100 miles. However, Claim "(c)" is dismissed because
abolishing positions.
Award Number 19901 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19857
The basic issue here ("(d)" and "(e)") deals with the Claimant's request
for reimbursement for moving expenses totaling $200.00, under Rule 62(b) of the
Agreement which states:
"Employees exercising seniority rights to new positions or
vacancies which necessitate a change of residence will receive
free transportation for themselves, dependent members of their
families, and household goods, on the lines of the Lehigh Valley
when it does not conflict with state or federal laws, but free
transportation of household effects under this circumstance need
not be allowed more than once in a twelve-month period
...."
On August 24, 1970, Claimant advised Carrier that she had been awarded
a position in Buffalo, New York and stated:
"I am entitled to expenses and/or cost of moving my household
goods from Manchester, N.Y. to Buffalo, N.Y. under Rule 62."
In response to that notification, the Carrier stated:
"I do not concur with you that the rule cited supports your
demand in this instance and it is therefore denied as without
merit."
Further, the Carrier stated that if there was merit to the demand made,
Claimant failed to support it with an itemized list of expenses incurred.
On January 12, 1971, the Carrier denied Claimant's Appeal,
"...
for
the same reasons as stated ...under date of October 6, 1970."
In March of 1971 the matter was appealed to the Director of Labor Relations. He replied that the
contained no dates nor amounts of claims nor any evidence to substantiate an existing claim. Further
within a Seniority District which was necessary for any employee, if they desire
to continue to be employed. Carrier stated that Rule 62 was not and is not intended nor interpreted
within the same District.
A number of months later, the Organization submitted to the Carrier a
March 29, 1971 receipt, written in longhand, for $200.00 for moving household goods
from Manchester, New York to West Seneca, New York. The receipt does not identify
the recipient as a mover, nor does it contain any breakdown of the charge.
The Board is unable to find support in the Agreement for Carrier's
assertion that Rule 62(b) does not apply to moves within the same Seniority District
i
Award Number 19901 Page 3
Docket Number CL-19857
Rule 62(b) appears to support the Claimant's request. She was an employee who exercised a senior
It is not unreasonable to believe that such an exercise of seniority would "necessitate a change of
issues concerning the necessity to change residence, but it chose not to do so.
Under the circumstances, the Board is of the view that the Claimant's assertion
in August of 1970 that she was entitled to the benefits of Rule 62(b) placed that
item
is
issue; but nothing in Rule 62(b) suggests that a "change in Seniority District" is vital to the
to be the necessity for change of residence.
After the matter was handled on the property, the Organization suggested,
in its Ex Parts Submission to this Board, that the portion of the rule which states
that transportation of household goods "...on the lines of the Lehigh Valley..."
has been ignored for years and that the moving of household goods has been performed
by a moving van rather than on the lines of the Carrier, as a matter of economics.
The Carrier disputes that assertion in its reply to the Employees' Ex
Parts Submission.
While it may be that movement of household goods by van is less expensive
an utilization of Carrier's equipment, this Board may not rewrite or reform the
Agreement. The matter of substitution for Carrier's equipment was not raised and/
or considered on the property and consequently the Board must disregard it at this
time. Thus, for purposes of this case, only the language of the agreement is before us.
In any event, the Board is of the view that the Claimant took appropriate
steps to comply with the Rule. The Claimant did not contract with an outside
source and then submit the bill to the Carrier. On August 24,.1970, she made her
declaratory statement that she was " ..entitled to expenses and/or cost of moving
my household goods from Manchester, New York to Buffalo, New York under Rule 62."
That declaratory statement appears to be sufficient to place the Carrier on notice
that the Claimant desired movement of household goods on the lines of the Lehigh
Valley. Instead of furthering that matter, the Carrier stated that the rule did
not support her demand and it was denied as without merit. Thus, the issue is
framed as to what, if any, self-assistance the Claimant could then employ under the
circumstances.
The Board has considered Award #14337 (Pereison). In that dispute, a
Carrier was obligated to move household effects for an employee, but did not do so.
Because of that failure on the part of the Carrier, the Board held that the Claimant therein had the
to recover reasonable costs, thereof. The rationale of that Award appears sound,
and seems to apply to Claimant in this dispute. Thus, within a reasonable period
of time after Carrier's refusal to comply with the request (noting that Rule 62
es not contain a time limitation in which the move must be made), the Claimant
may incur moving costs.
I
Award Number 19901 Page 4
Docket Number CL-19857
Upon a showing of reasonable cost expenditure, the Carrier should
reimburse the Claimant.
In this instance, the Board is reluctant to grant Claimant's request
for $200.00 for moving household goods based on the rather sketchy receipt in
the record. However, the Board is of the view that Claimant can receive reimbursement for the move o
demonstrate, with more specific detail, the costs expended and show time of
move, basis for charges, etc. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the
parties to resolve the question of the specific amount due to Claimant for movement of household goo
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim (a), (b) and (c) are dismissed for the reasons set forth in
the Opinion.
Claim (d) end (e) are remanded to the parties as set forth in the
last paragraph of the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
P
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August 1973.