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-=:-







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


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.
_ ')_


                    .;.,. 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