1':RT1ES ) Brotierhood o_ ._.il:aay, .__rii:e ._.~ S_~_..._:_~ C1~_=,.
.reight F:and:lcrs, ..:_~es,. and St"._o:: 1-,_cy2..~
DISP;:T^L ) ~nd
Pennsylvania Railroad C=p<.ny

QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (a) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of

t he

X2.:1.0:121 $CVplOyl:;2i;t JtaJ=li::atYO: __"= c.L~.^,t

_ Sated ?ebruary 7, 1965, when _,. __a_._=erred

seven positions from the Stores D~:rtr:::~t,

1.oga,aport, India: _, C:zicago Division ,.:.::iority

J.Str1Ct, across SCn iOr=ty 1-incs, to Stores

Department, CO1L:rJL:S, 01:=O, v01L.;.bl:s DiViJW n

Seniority D'.strict, without enter:_n,i:,:o irlpler:enting aSree:.eat G_ ?rovided in 2rtic12 III, oz the Agree~,-:nt of rebruary 7, 1965, thereby adversely affecting a nu::,S2r of employer?

(b) Should each of the er:ployes na-ed in the ..n:ploy2s' State.~ra of ;acts be restored to t::-= e.^y1cy;:=nt status hall by him prior to August 6, 19,65, be compensated for all r..or:etarv loss susta;n2d, and be allowed the ot_:er cctions and b_.,afits arovided in the P.greesent of .2b'rLla,ry 7, 1905, .-_.til t 'he Agreersnt is properly applied?

(c) S::a11 the Carrier be required to give ?roper notice and negotiate and appropriate i-:ple:w sting agre2:n,:nt to provide for:

(1) Tae changes in work locations?

(2) The transfer of positions a::d er ?lcyes, troy one city to another, across seniority lines?

(3) 1ne application o= the electio:is and be.^.:fits prcvid--d in :.r tide V of tha ce'oru==y 7, 196

. Agreeswnt to employes who are required to move their places of residence?

OPINION The seven C1aiants herein ware roti_`ieu by

OP BOARD: that their positions would be transderrec -_ca loZansport,
_ndiana to Columbus, Ohio, effective August c, '_565. C)na of the Claimants transferred to Colur:bus with '::is nosaio.^., ca:^.ile t;.e remaining C1ai-mar,ts e::erciccd their seniority to positions _.. ~o~a:aport. The Organization, thereaTt2r, instituted tae instant claim on the ground that the Carrier was required to enter into an ir:_oler:r;:ting greement pursuant to Article III of the February 7, 1965 Nat.'oL Agreement.
Ths Carrier vizorously

11071 Ca --_e e.;t'_.P- LrcC:' ,.

interpretation of 2xticle
bar 24, 1905, as follows:

I::~ia:;o:a_

`0~

.`

i,...following situations: (a) Ssnenever the proposed change involves _.,e transfer of e:::nl.oyS from one seniority district ca rcs;:er to another, as such seniority districts or rossers existed on February 7, 1965.

_ ::~ _._ .

Ti:hcnever the proposed char_C2, une~_ -:. rae...°_at :.
effect prior to February 7, 19'05, would not have lain
pe'W 11iSSible without conference and agreement with rEprE
sentativcs of tile Organizations."

'=he Carrier relies on paragraph 1 Q above, J specifically Rule 3-E-1 of the effective 6.Creerient between the parties,

111 Or the National -3_ C: :.

..:.::nt5 b!11_

,.,,_ o__o.._

s.OW

- = - U210 10

__,.uu _ C.'. .CVe..:_

_e in t...

adverting to as follows:

"3-E-1 (a) Employes whose positions are trL..sferrcc; to another seniority district will, if they choose to follow such positions, carry their seniority with them and will retain and continue to accumulate seniority in their hcna seniority district, Employes not electing zo follow their positions may exercise seniority in their c-:e seniority district under Rule 3-C-l."

Thus, the Carrier asserts that ?>>1e 3-E-1 eliminates the necessity to enter into an ir.01e::.=ntino agree-eat and teat such conditior, is recognized by the previously quoted interpretation. In cur view, the Carrier's argument is meritorious.

Award

The answer to questions (a), ('o) and (c) is in the Ma-

-71

yi

,if -~-~ : ~ c~__ : L 1,

a:llrray iS.~/ROartan
tveutral `.umber

Dated: Washington, D.C.
Arch 7, 109