N. C. CROTTY FRANK L. NOAKES
 PRESIDENT SECRETARY-TREASURER








                              OFFICE OF


                            PRESIDENT


                                79 T,~ ,~f605

                                2-7-1 7/VO5

                                                2-7-65

                                                Western Pacific


                          March 4, 1969


          Mr. J. J. Berta

          704-06 Consumers Building

          220 South State Street

          Chicago, Illinois 60604


          Dear Brother Berta:


                  Re: Special Board of Adjustment X605


              (Disputes Committees February 7, 1965 Agreement)


          For the completion of your records I enclose three copies of Award No. 29 of Special Board of Adjustment X605 in Case No. SG-6-W involving the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Western Pacific Railroad Company.


                With best wishes, I am


                              Sincerely and fraternally yours,


                              ;;~/~ ~~


                                      Presidefrc-Enclosure

          DIM n9


            L9 v~

                                              Award No. 29

      J^

-- Case No. SG-6-1.4

                  SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTS: ---NT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmcn
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Western Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Should Carrier now be required to compensate IJ. D. Dakan the
 difference between the General Test Maintainer and the Relief
 Signalman Maintainer rates of pay from close of business October
 30, 1964, until he is restored to a General Test Maintainer or a
 higher rated position.
 OPINION On October 1, 1964 claimant was the incumbent of a General Test
 OF BOARD: Maintainer position headquartered in outfit care - Oroville to
 ' Portola (205-317 miles from San Francisco). On October 30, 1964
 claimant's position was abolished and he bid in a lower rated Relief Signal Main
 tainer position headquartered in the same area.

 When claimant elected to take the Relief Signal Maintainer position, he could have exercised his seniority to a higher rated Draftsmen's position at San Francisco. Carrier refused a compensation guarantee at the higher rate under Article IV Section 4. A question emerged as~to whether a change of residence was entailed under that provision.

 We conclude that since the record lacks sufficient evidence to the contrary, claimant did maintain his residence in the outfit cars and a move to San Francisco would have been a change of residence within the contemplation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Therefore, claimant is entitled to the difference in compensation.

 Because of the unique facts and circumstances of this award, there is no intent to establish a precedent on this or any other carrier.

                              AWARD


            Claim disposed of in accordance with the opinion of Board.

        CARRIER MEMBERS ErT1DYEE f.;.MB°RS

        . _ _ ~.G'~fllGri.


        ~f,ls...~-.._~


liaehington, D. C., lrebsunry 7, 1969