PARTIES ) brot_:erhoo:. of Raiivray, -.iri_;:o ~._:d °.,._~.:..____-
         
..lcr=;s,
     
*_,_
 
TO )  Freight F_.idlers, 3y_ess a=.6 SW.,.ic.:
DISPUtn, )     and
   
dew York, \e4r Haven and l,r_r: ford Company
QUESTIOVS     -
AT ISSUE: 1. Did Carrier violate the rrovisions of
 
_ebruary 7, 1965 agreem-eat :siren; o: 
._ 
st
 
3i, 1965, it 
abolished 
the 
General 
Clc-=:-
Laborar position held by J. J. Zyc:: and refused to thercafte- co:.~,:)2ns<.te i._;a in a~cordance with the 
provisions 
of Article IV?
2. Did Carrier violate the provisio.^,^,., of the
February 7, 1165 ul.gree::ent 47h2n it dGn1Ed
~u. 
Zyck the right to 
exercise 
displece~:.-.nt
rights to the highest rated position avzilable to him which would not have reouired
a change in residence?
3. Shall Carrier now be required to restore
k1r. Zyck to fully protected straws and
compensate 
him in 
accordance 
wit': the pre-
visions of Article IV, Section 1, for all
wage loss suf=ered following 
abolishment
of his position?
OPL\'IOV,
OF BOARD: Despite the confusing mess o= detailed comes?o:cenca in
 
C1Ud.-d in the instant claim, tie vrsailiCCa'_O:1 
5-22k5 
t0 have
 
the'. C1a17C,ant exercise dlSplaCe_.2nt rigstS, a5 
Y:.-^..li 2S 
re
 
cover any monetary losses, pursuant to Article IV, Section
  
, of the oebruary'7, 1905 
National 
?~r2e:-.~.-t.
Briefly, the facts indicate tl.aC the Carriaz transferred
certain work from various points to a Central billing Dapartrc:t a,
Hew Haven. This necessitated aboi fishing twelve posi tics =.n: esta-Sl,.shirg three new positions at S,:w Haven. The C'_ai^ant's position was one
of those abolish:.-d and instead of bidding for one 
of Lae 
newly created
positions, h e sou,ht to displace on the Ch fief C1er:C position at Wall-in'ford. In due course, he·was notified of his inability co displace on
that position due to lack o= qua=ifications. However, ac the Ciai.^antS
request, he was given an opportunity to post on _..at pcs_tioa for five
days, without compensation. .?2in, it was datC:m1.'.d t:.at '--- 1_-ckad
the necessary qualifications -- but he 
continued, 
for a?:ro:·:i.-at-a _;' sit
weeks, to attempt to acquire the ability to 
:`-.form -- 
_;1 ,.o no avail.
 
,_
In addition, he lacked the. ability t0 ty~-c, a..2CeSSary skill Jn this
- i  -
 
position. Hena2, the instant claim was =;med 
O 
n t~,  e V 
J;: 
nu  _ : _
Claimant was not permitted to displace on the Chief C1e~k-°s position
at Wailingford.
_ ')_
..:....d ':J. _3~
 
.;.,. C:~-19-E
One of tha ~c~'
^
=o ns posee 
._re_· 
__.__ __.___ .._.._,._,.
11, Section i ) or t,,:i_ :~2t=.cn 1 re 
~-· 
~~ C_ - -,. ~- - '  -
 
J':i  y 
t _  ,_.,_, 
~.'_._ W.~(i _~ 
UW.
protected 
e,:.?loyea 
when 
he 
_<.il2d to cbtai n a pcs-_Lio:; <.:cila;_e to H`-a
in the exercise of his S_iority rig is in accorCC.c~: 
.,_L.. 
e>:i.st_:,C Ovules
or ad-ieer..2ats. lde have ds,_r:~in2d _.. Casa .;_. C~.-27- ...._.rd _:o. 33,
_  
_, .
rendered this daze, that
P<uJ.e 45 i,-..: o;_. a _.utua_ oali~ _tio.-. n-
parties o:. the
. iLi3 record reVCa19 that 
c. 
nil..^,',h2r 
Oi yOSiCiGLSy..~rG 
aV'._la'Dle
t0 the, C1a 1.'.:ant 
4ii11.C:1 
n 
C 
failed 
t0 
~O}Jv2in. ?n 
ai:C.i1:.'_OP,· Ll:.. 
C1a _..,
-,:I L
was recalled under the Agreecrent for 
a 
position c: .".; C:-"...r-r at
New Haven, SJhiCv: 112 refused. 1n our view, 'the Carrier ..<.,.-COilp1'iC'd 
411C:1
the provisions of the 
agreement.
AF1A2D
Answer to questions 1, 2 and 3 is in the negative.
1
-~~ll~_a;~rl ~~,~;~ 
-<i~L~
:furray~4. Aohman
y'eutra~ T~r.,her
Dated: Washington, D. C.
 
larch 7, 1969