.f1'I;CI!,i. 1;0,"::;? Oi' !_~11J:7i.;:·:'.' ?:0. GOi
YAR'1:ie:S ) Brotherhood of ,ei.7.roatl Si--;l;lr:;;:n
i'O ) <.na
DISfUTi: ) (1·ormer) pennsylvani-a
Railroad
i.o:lpa;:y
QUESTIO'.:
AT ISSUE: Clai;n that iir. A. L, h.l>,~1t;oy, ifaint:z:.::cr C. L.
01
SCtII.OUiIy
I)i.;:tri_Ci: No. lU,
1:10 t:.^,:; Cr'vCf:'.·_7.f
.
affcctea l:a;rch 7C, 7.63 as a result: o~ the eb~.r~c:.-..:r:t
of tile
Rochester
I::on.^h Lc·Ltcecn llim><:aa.e <.,-:c: --::o_t':;
Junction effective 1'coruary 7_u, 19611, he rci.s~'::_::::;: for
a7.1 expenses incuri:ed a:; p_ovidc-d in the I'e;s Gri.e^,.n s
Conditions. Especially, Sections 4, 7, an-1 9
0:: LL:- -
New Orleans Conditions, for d:·.splac<r:.cnt, less; of v~<.es,
travel eN; enscs, meals all," loc~i.n~ , .-rovinC e::penc=;; s
account of Ci?1nl-E: of
7:C;
id.".i1CC as i .^.'ly
C`.,:y:.!':.^._~ Oi.' 1CSC
in sale of home, etc., clue to auan<:nn:-:cnt rci.:rrod to cSo,~.
OPIN,IOi:
OF BOARD: Certain portions of trachagc, kno:n as the Roc::cs ter Era:.ch,
were abandoned in I'cbruary, 193. At tire ti;:: Clai.;:_at was
the C & S N.aintainc'r at
ca.
i:orris, N. Y. and resi2=d at
Leicester, N. Y. about 4 miles away. In 1_---rch, 19b3, Claimant
elected to displace a junior si.gnalr;an in the Camp Car Train at Olean, 2v. Y.
and continued to maintain his residence at Leicester. In June, 191;4, Claimant
was awarded the C & S fiaintaincr position at East Aurora, i;. X., a?p::o::i:;ately
43 piles from Leicester. lie then sold his ho:~: in Leicester ,and r^.ovat: his
residence to Holland, N. Y. This claim is for the loss incurred in the sale
of the house; travel, moving and other e:cpenses related to the rove. Tile basis
for the claim is that Claimant was adversely affected as a direct result of the
Rochester Branch abandonment, and tans entitled to such compensation under the
terms of the New Orleans Conditions, particularly Section 4, 7, and 9.
The question here is whether, under the circulilstinces, Claimant's
change of residence teas required as a direct result of the Re Chester Branch
abandonrent. Remuneration under the New Orleans Agreement is premised on a
"required" change as a result of the abandonment.
The Board finds that where, as here, an employe continues in
employ·rnent after an abandonment and later voluntarily bids on another position
necessitating a change of residence, it is not a change required as a direct
result of the abandonment.
AWARD
The Claim is denied.
~ t!/~ ~~
15XI .,
e
Dated: Washington, D. C. t/.
,lu:ac. 24, 1,969