PARTIES ) Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Company
 TO T:1 ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 QUESTION Are Section Foremen B. Devora and P. Connors
 AT ISSUE: entitled to "tile bonefits contained in Sec
 tion 10 of the Washington Agreement not~;ith
 standing anything to the contrary contained
 in said provisions and shall have five o;orking
 days instead of the 'two working days' p--o
 vided by Section 10 (a) of said Agrecmen~c"
 (Item 2 of agreed-to interpretation o=
 Article III of the February 7, 1965 Agree
 ment) because they were required to change
 their respective points of residence as
 a result of an organizational and opera
 tional change resulting from the abandon
 ment of 65.9 miles of track between Wishram
 and Plymouth and its relocation elsewhere
 for the convenience and at the cost and
 expense of the U. S. Government.
 OPINION Although Carrier contended that the claims are
 OF BO.XRD: barred pursuant to the time limits, they were filed
 within nine months of the final answer by Carrier's
 highest officer, on December 6, 1967.

 Claimant Devora, on the evidence, did not move his residence and therefore had no basis for the expenses sought at the time the claim was filed.

 In March, 1967, sections were consolidated and Claimant Connors consequently was required to move from Albany, Oregon, to Kahlotus, Washington. The Employes asserted that the benefits of the Washington Agreement were due him. On March 10, the General Roadmaster denied the claim. It was not progressed further, and apparently was abandoned.

 In May, 1967, Mr. Connors was the successful bidder to fill a vacancy which had meanwhile occurred in


Albany. The record indicates that Mr. Connors acted volun
 tarily in order to return to Albany. It was not that: an
 organizational change obliged him to leave Nahlotus. Fie
 returned to Albany on June 5.

 There was a surprising coincidence in the sequence of events, since Mr. Devora tool, the Y%chlotu_, position on June 5 after he had been displaced due to a consolidation. According to Carrier, he selected K2hlotj.s when he learned that Mr. Connors was leaving there. Thus :-:r. Devora, who was on vacation when Mr. Connors bid the Albany position, did not displace Mr. Connors; he replaced him.

 Nevertheless, in June a claim was initiated seeking expenses and time off for.Mr. Connors' move back to Albany. This new claim has no merit, since the move was not required by an operational or organizational change, but was a voluntary action by Mr. Connors to fill a vacant position.

                      A W A R D


            The answer to the Question is "No."


                        Milton Friedman, Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D . C.
        September /U, 1969


-2-