Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32526
Docket No. CMS-32848
98-3-96-3-191
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(T. R. Jensen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(1) Did the carrier violate the CNW April 26, 1972 agreement referred
to as `Appendix D' when it failed and refused to compensate myself (T. R.
Jensen) the real estate benefits available under Appendix D, when 1 was
required to change by point of employment resulting in a change of my
residence in October of 1992?
(2) If the answer to the above question NO I is in the affirmative, the
carrier shall compensate myself (T. R. Jensen) to 12°/6 of the fair market
value of my home, by using the CNW'S Appraisals which were done in
December of 1992 to figure the market value."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, rinds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 32526
Page 2 Docket No. MS-32848
98-3-96-3-191
The instant case involves a dispute over the application of Appendix D, Article
IX and X of the Agreement between the Parties. At the time the dispute arose, Claimant
was employed in the Carrier's Materials Department in Council Bluffs, Iowa. On
October 8, 1992, Claimant's position at Council Bluffs was abolished. On October 12,
1992, Claimant displaced to Marshalltown, Iowa. He began work in that new position
on October 19, 1992. At or about the same time, Claimant applied for the 5500.00
transfer allowance available under Article IX-B of the Agreement. He later applied for
the real estate benefits under Articles IX and X, on November 2, 1992. While employed
at Marshalltown, Claimant took a three week vacation from October 26, 1992, through
November 13, 1992. Claimant was displaced from the Marshalltown position on
December 4, 1992, subsequently displaced a Yard Clerk job at Fremont, Nebraska.
Article IX and X read in pertinent part as follows:
"(a) Any employe of the carrier coming under the scope of the agreement
between the carrier and BRAC who is continued in service after having
been adversely affected by force reductions resulting from permanent
abolishment of a position (or who is later restored to service from the
group of employes entitled to receive a furlough allowance) who is required
to change the point of his employment as a result of such abolishment of a
position and is therefore required to move his place of residence, shall be
reimbursed for all expenses of moving his household and other personal
effects and for the traveling expenses of himself and members of his family,
including living expenses for himself and his family and his own actual
wage loss during the time necessary for such transfer, and for a reasonable
time thereafter, (not to exceed five working days) used in securing a place
of residence in his new location. No claim for expenses under this Section
shall be allowed unless they are incurred within three years from the date
adversely affected and the claim must be submitted within ninety (90) days
after the expenses are incurred. Change of residence shall not be
considered 'required' if the reporting point to which the employe is
changed is not more than 30 miles from his former reporting point, to be
computed via the most direct highway mileage.
(b) Any employe entitled to benefits under Article IX, Section (a), shall.
in addition thereto, receive a transfer allowance of five hundred dollars
($500.00).
Form l Award No. 32526
Page 3 Docket No. MS-32848
98-3-96-3-191
ARTICLE X
(a) The following provisions shall apply, to the extent they are
applicable in each instance to any employe who is retained in the service
of the C&NW subsequent to force reductions resulting from permanent
abolishment of a position (or who is later restored to such service from the
group of employes entitled to receive a furlough allowance) who is required
to change the point of his employment as a result of such permanent
position abolishment and is therefore required to more his place of
residence . . . ."
Claimant's request for the $500.00 allowance was paid by the Carrier. However,
his request for the real estate benefit was declined. During processing on the property,
the Carrier contended that working in Marshalltown for two three week periods did not
constitute a relocation as contemplated by the TCU/CNW Agreement. The CNW also
pointed out that Claimant had worked in Marshalltown only approximately 18 days.
They referred Claimant to Public Law Board No. 4848, Award 31, which held that
failure to establish a primary residence in a new location failed to meet the principal
criterion necessary for benefits awarded under Articles IX and X. The Organization
concurred with the Carrier in its determination. Subsequently, Claimant elected to
pursue the matter ex parte.
The instant case is not identical to the matter at issue in Award 31 of Public Law
Board No. 4848. In that case the Board found that the Claimant had not ceased "living"
at his original residence. In the instant case, while Claimant "lived" at his new location,
he did not have to change his primary residence, or move his household goods and his
family from Council Bluffs to Marshalltown. Nor did Claimant "obtain shelter, on a
continuing basis, at his new location." Rather, he spent a few days sharing an apartment
with a co-worker, and the remaining days at a hotel. Accordingly, Claimant has not met
the criteria set forth in Article IX. Therefore, he is not entitled to the real estate
allowance provided in Attachment A, Section 5(a). For reasons not clear on this record,
the Carrier elected to pay Claimant $500.00. Such payment does not constitute an
admission by Carrier that Claimant is also entitled to the Article IX real estate benefits.
Form 1 Award No. 32526
Page 4 Docket No. MS-32848
98-3-96-3-191
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration
of
the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of
Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day
of
March 1998.