NATIONAL RA1120AD ADJUS'iMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23336
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
~3'fATEMGN7' OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company:
On behalf of Signalman Dean Scott for moving expenses in the
amount of $286.80, five days' pay, and a $400.00 transfer allowance as a
result of securing a position of signal maintainer at Oklahoma City."
(Carrier file: D-9849)
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arises from the fact that claimant Dean Scott,
a signal maintainer at Claremore, Oklahoma, moved his job
location to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Organization contends that because of
the move, claimant is entitled to the benefits of Rule 31 (b), wherein Sections
10 and 11 of the Washington Job Protection Agreement are referenced. Specifically,
the Organization is requesting a $286.80 moving allowance, $400.00 transfer allowance, and five days
Carrier denies the claim and alleges that the change in claimant's
job was of his own choosing and not directed by Carrier because of a technological,
operational or organizational change, requirements that make Rule 31 (b) operable.
This Board cannot agree with Carrier that its action in this case is
not covered under Rule 31(b). Carrier installed power switches in the Cherokee
Yard. It became necessary to provide 24-hour maintenance service on a seven-day
basis. This requirement made it necessary for Carrier to make adjustments in
numerous maintainers' position, including the one held by claimant.
Under Article 41 of the Schedule Agreement, when a Carrier changes a
rest day, the location of headquarters, the pay basis, or a territorial limit,
the position must be rebulletined. That is what took place in this case. Claimant's job was changed,
the power witches on a 24-hour, seven-day basis. A more senior employe bid the
job and claimant was forced to take another position. This Board considers the
installation of the power switches and the subsequent changes in the maintainer's
job to be precisely the type of situation that Rule 31(b) covers.
carrier bases its denial of this claim on numerous principles. It
especially argues that even if claimant was required to take another maintainer's
job, he did not have to take a job in Oklahoma City, a distance of more than
thirty miles from hi.s reporting point in Claremore. He could have bid and held
three ma_ntainer jobs in Cherokee Yard. That is less than 30 miles from Claremor
and claimant would not have been eligible for the moving benefits under Rule 31(b)·
Award Number
23419
Page 2
Docket Number
3G-?_3336
It was his own choosing not to bid on the Cherokee Yard jobs, but to
wait until he was displaced from his Claremore position so that he could
displace the maintainer at Oklahoma City and subsequently receive the
monetary benefits of Rule 31(b).
The record of this case, however, does not support Carrier's
position that if claimant had bid a Cherokee Yard job, he would have
been less than 30 miles from the reporting point for the Claremore
position. In its submission, Carrier clearly states that it is
31
miles
from the reporting point at Claremore to the reporting point in the Cherokee
Yards. That would have been the closest job claimant could have held. If
he had bid those jobs, he would have been eligible for the benefits of Rule
31(b).
This Board is of the opinion that this claim must be sustained for
the moving expenses incurred by claimant and for the
$400
transfer allowance
specified in Rule 31(b). Carrier is not responsible for the five-days of pay
requested by the Organization. Section 10(a) clearly states that an affected
claimant is to be reimbursed for his own actual wage loss during the time
necessary to find new housing. Claimant in this case had no lost time.
Consequently, no money is due him under this benefit.
FILINGS: 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 Fmployes 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.
Award Number 23419 page 3
Docket Number SG-23336
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion. Carrier is
directed to make payment of $286.80 for moving expenses and a $400 transfer
allowance.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSBONPi' BOARD
By Order of Third Division
A'pTGST:
iv.
4444104W~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of November 1981.