PARTIES ) Chicago and North Western Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of MaintcnDnce of Way Employees

 QUESTION Does the attac;:ed implementing aree
 AT ISSUE: merit proposed by the carrier fully
 comply with the provisions of Article
 III of the Agreement, and ii not, in




OPINION 1. Vne issue which runs through t'nia series
 OF BOARD: of cases is ~~r'ret:.c:r the February 7, 1:05, Ag__eem~at
 permits the Carrier to transfer protected e;a:~lo_,·ees
 to a new roster and place them ahead of the unprotected em
 ployees with seniority on that roster.

 The Agreement specifically grants Carrier the right to transfer protected employees. There 5.s no reason to believe that this right eras designed to be virtually meaningless, as it would be if the result was to freeze all unprotected employees by placing the newly transferred protected employees below them.

 Objections have been made by the Employes to proposed transfers when men are on furlough or where the force is allegedly adequate. However, Article III, Section 4, specifically denies the Committee jurisdiction over "the right of the Carrier to make the change."

 Seniority rules long in existence provide that when employees are added to a roster, their seniority begins as of the date they start work the:ie. These rules contain no authorization for carrier to mandate transfers. Ho~aever, the February 7, 1905, Agreement not only aut:.orizes Carrier to transfer protected employees and to rearrange forces in accordance with it, but Article III, Section 5, states that this "shall not constitute an infringement of rights of unprotected employees who may be affected thereby." This provision was designed to modify the existing rules.
 .

      YJhile the nature of .-rjy not described, it is therefore unli'_tely that P.rcicle i-_ri to favor unprotected employees who had less scnioj: ity ecm.r.:;.:-ed whiz protected tran·.;ferees who had greater wen:i_of~i~;; or. t:.cir own rosters. Consequently Carrier's proposed Article l=V r~:a~t be deemed proper in placing the tram>_'eJ°ces belovr the Junior protected man or subdivision 12 and above the unprotected men. In the conditions the Carrier describes alb. of the tran:;ferred protected men are senior to the unprotected men on the territory to which transferred.


      2. The Interpretations of November 24, 105, provide in Item 3 on page 11, as follo;rs:


              When changes are made under Item 1 or 2 above which do not result in an emplcyce being required to work in excess of 30 normal travel route males from the residence he occupies on the effective date of the change, such employee will not be considered as being required to change his place of residence unless otherwise agreed.


      Carrier states that in this case no employee would be required to work in excess of 30 norrr:al travel route miles from the residence he occupies. Therefore Article VI of Carrier's proposed Implementing Agreement is proper.


                            A W A R D


                  The answer to the Question is "Yes."


i~ `-~to~iedman, Referee

 _2-