Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36007
Docket No. SG-35842
02-3-99-3-847
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
( (former Southern Pacific)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee ofthe Brotherhood ofRailroad
Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad Co. (former Southern Pacific):
Claim on behalf of M.P. Gotthardt for payment of moving expenses
totaling $2,338.98, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly Attachment "G" when on March 20, 1998, it
made an organizational/operational change and then failed to pay the
Claimant for his relocation expenses. Carrier File No. 1164848. General
Chairman's File No. SWGC-1811. BRS File Case No. 11024-SP."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds 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. 36007
Page 2 Docket No. SG-35842
02-3-99-3-847
The instant dispute requires an interpretation of the meaning and intent of
Attachment "G" of the parties' Negotiated Rules Agreement. Article XH of said
Attachment "G" reads as follows:
"ATTACHMENT G
Article XII - Changes of Residence Due to Technological, Operational or
Organizational Changes
When a carrier makes a technological, operational, or organizational
change requiring an employee to transfer to a new point of employment
requiring him to move his residence, such transfer and change of residence
shall be subject to the benefits contained in Sections 10 and 11 of the
Washington Job Protection Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in said provisions, except that the employee shall be
granted (5) working days instead of `two working days' provided in
Section 10(a) of said Agreement; and in addition to such benefits the
employee shall receive a transfer allowance of $400. Under this provision,
change of residence shall not be considered `required' if the reporting
point to which the employee is changed is not more than thirty (30) miles
from his former reporting point."
Section 10(a) of the Washington Job Protection Agreement as referenced in
Attachment "G" reads as follows:
"Section 10(a) Any employee who is retained in the service of any carrier
involved in a particular coordination (or who is later restored to service
from the group of employees entitled to receive a coordination allowance)
who is required to change the point of his employment as result of such
coordination 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 two working days), used in securing a place
of residence in his new location. The exact extent of the responsibility of
the carrier under this provision and the ways and means of transportation
Form 1 Award No. 36007
Page 3 Docket No. SG-35842
02-3-99-3-847
shall be agreed upon in advance between the carrier responsible and the
organization of the employee affected. No claim for expenses under this
Section shall be allowed unless they are incurred within three years from
the date of coordination and the claim must be submitted within ninety (90)
days after the expenses are incurred."
In this case, the Claimant was assigned to a position of Maintainer with
headquarters at San Antonio, Texas. On March 5,1998, the Carrier bulletined two new
Signal Maintainer positions with headquarters at Kirby, Texas, which is located within
30 miles of San Antonio. Effective March 31,1998, the Claimant's Maintainer position
was abolished. At the time of the abolishment, both of the newly-created Maintainer
positions were available to the Claimant on the basis of his seniority standing. Rather
than exercise his seniority to one of the two available Maintainer positions at Kirby,
Texas, the Claimant elected to displace on a Maintainer position at Seguin, Texas.
Because Seguin, Texas, is located 75 miles from San Antonio and because the Claimant
moved his residence to Seguin, Texas, he requested reimbursement for his relocation and
moving expenses allegedly in accordance with the provisions of Attachment "G."
The Organization's position in this dispute alleges that there were no similar
daytime positions available for the Claimant at San Antonio and he was, therefore,
forced to transfer to Seguin to obtain a position equivalent to the position he previously
held. It contends that this move was not a voluntary action on the Claimant's part and
therefore the relocation and moving allowances provided for in Attachment "G" are
applicable in this case.
The Carrier argues that there were, in fact, two similar positions available to the
Claimant within 30 miles of his previous headquarters location. It contends the
Claimant voluntarily opted to use his seniority to obtain the Maintainer position in
Seguin, Texas, because he did not wish to work a standard "shift" assignment.
From the Board's review of the facts in this case, several cogent points become
obvious. The establishment of the two Maintainer positions at Kirby, Texas, could well
be considered an operational change. However, that fact alone does not entitle the
Claimant to decline to accept one of the two available positions and voluntarily elect to
displace on a position that was located 75 miles distant. The Board cannot differentiate
between the Maintainer position at Seguin, Texas, to which the Claimant displaced and
the two "shift" Maintainer positions at Kirby, Texas. The newly-created Maintainer
Form 1 Award No. 36007
Page 4 Docket No. SG-35842
02-3-99-3-847
positions had rates of pay equal to or greater than the rate of pay of the abolished
position. The newly-created positions were in the same work and seniority class as the
abolished position. The newly-created positions were both bulletined as "daytime"
positions. The location of the newly-created positions was within the 30-mile radius that
triggers the application of the provisions of Attachment "G." It is an established fact
that the Claimant was not "required" to move his place of residence in order to hold a
position similar to the one he held at the time of its abolishment. His election to move
to Seguin, Texas, was purely voluntary on his part. The relocation and moving expenses
provisions of Attachment "G" are not applicable in this instance. The claim as
presented is denied.
AWARD ''
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration ofthe 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 16th day of April, 2002.