PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 To ) and
 DISPUTE ) Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Claim of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on
 the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company on
 behalf of P:assrs. G. J. Fech and
 J. G. Bennett for the difference
 between the Signalman rate of pay
 and that of lower rated positions
 they worked after Carrier abolished
 their Signalman positions on the gang
 at Slatington, Pa., on or about August 4
 and December 22, 1967, respectively, with
 this payment to be made to them as long
 after those dates as they are entitled to
 it under the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
 OPINION
 0: B04RD: While there are two individual claimants, the
 pertinent facts are applicable to both. They
 are protected employes as Signalmen under the
 February 7 Agreement. Their positions were
 abolished, and rather than exercise their seniority to positions of
 equal or higher rates of pay involving work at distances greater thaa
 30 miles from their residences, each exercised his seniority and took
 lower rated positions which were very near their residences. The
 claims are for the difference between the Signalman rate of pay and
 that of the lower rated positions.

 The issue to be determined in this dispute is whether the provisions of the February 7 Agreement give an employe the option to either change residence and work the higher rated position or not change residence, work the lower rated position and receive the compensation of the higher rated position.

 The rationale of Claimant's contention is that whenever an employe takes a position in excess of 30 miles from his residence, a change of residence would be required. If, Claimants contend further, a change of residence is required, but they elect not to move and work the lower rated position, then they arc entitled to the difference between the compensation paid for the protected rate and that of the lower rated position.

                                        Case No. SG-25-L


                      -2-


We do not agree. 'Here is nothins in the provisions of the February 7 A3reemant or the ASreed Upon Interpr;:tati.o:a which allows an employe to take a lower rated position and be coi;:ens:~.ted at his protected rate if the equal or higher rated position is "in excess of 30 normal travel route miles from the residence h:, occupies on the effective date of the change, x;:,~'

                      AWARD


              The claims are denied.


                      Nicholas H. :·~mas

                      Neutral D:e.()r


Dated: Washington, D. C.
        September 22, 1969


                      e

      ' Jc_~rG::3 ~ .,.~ L_'10 C_.a~: u'T.S _ ~_._S CGCC ..W.~LC ~__ _ _ _G;j2 c:

                                n


                    ;. Gi

unc a,
 _ _ _ _ ';;2 ..rises the cc.r_2'r aco_~_.e~ ,;.:21_ o=~w~L-..__. .. __._c_.~
 .._.v -~i:2y Cv^^u_C :0t, 1'ff-.h tf21r S2.iOrl~y rl~_ °~C~.__. O~_.~_ ~G~=-~-~_._ _~ _.
 cC'..-_ _:iT,2 of -ay "I'_1 vslli C-:::zi:i~ i.;C-lr rC-S.'..u2f:CeS. _...:C2T ~:i;! ':i:·'_:..=:._u
 Senior= ,:..:..'1 obtained ,^nOS-~_O:S atVS _u_.,S2r rate G= -pay andC -'-·=.:
 _: :. -i:2 carrier O= -he~dli=G-r2^: Cv b2'GS'!22'-1 v.:2 bay O: ~-:2 ~..:12r r4~2:: _ ..:. a'_'.C
 vie Si,~:.a1::271I3 nOSltiO:S that were abl-liished.

 ~":'lav those claimants claimed was eyactly

 Linder the 1965 Agreement. Yet the Neutral denfe~-

        _.2 o^vV2'_'T.~-:b 'OZ'011iS1Cr Of t.:2 -arc^2 ::c L is __: _.'.C=2 _V)

.`~2::-__..._. _.
 _..a. sec-,Ion _JrOViC2S that _WOt2C~2G 2.".::J,_Gy22S w"O "Old "aEa
 _ .._,.~.,.... O_7 vCVCGer 1~ 1`JGL,~ ' S .:&_- .. ,, u2 -laC2G :.:. a ..c__-2
 =c_ucC,, v0 Cr^'^...:2:.,.2v10:1 v..2. Z_.2 normal- rate of CG^_2Sa~=.G~ _ _ ..c .=G r2~, _
 -a--y aoS.'~_Ii2G "17CS.:.O: 0:1 October 1: 1964 plus 8G~'u:St::2=:t.. _.W :.._GSC=.:EW
 o2:2ra1 1:'202 iPCr25S2S,

      w.2 ...t this '.GOl:rlt that

u, 1"Ii t.OUt ::C:2~ ,..2 =-~r2e:.".2-.v C_2:=r=y _-_ _.
 -_.~ ~ W^:2 Cl aL:S b2 al-owed. 1 2 abolition of C12_:.".c: tS l .^.JS=-_-iG -S 32S c.
 =:2:: '.'1 a worse :GCSit-10:: with r2S'_J2Cv v0 CO::D2i Sati0:7 w:~'_cSS -i:2 C_c.-=cr2
 '.'..110:i2G; either to claims must v2 51101''J2G Or SG2tf:i_1S must ~Gc found 2_S2-
 :'I_:2r2 it1:2 Agreement which 11.^.11IS Or conditions or C:icll.=i2S -~2 i=
 eGru2rr2a by A::ticle IV, Section -L.

      just at this point v1:2 N2'":"ural ja:2::W 2r .'Il-iSSvat2S v 2 _SSu2. -_2 Says

=_:2 issue t0 be ^v'2t2-.CT.17.;2C' in this d-o-', I- Ute is -U on
 FCC;" ::;:.-f 7 I'.gT'CC:i:ialt J1VV ;171 employ0 U1-ha G;JtlO:: tO v1v.:Cr .._... :'·'C r W=.=u:_ CC
 ,(DII OT' 71G'C C7Q1:~,,-,'O TCO._..~:1CO .. :_. ~_... _.,;:u:_
 rated 70S-iGiO-: ,...al reC2iVe ~1:C CO7:iC)l:I1S;111G.: O= ''J.2 h1,-hC:_ :~-LCG ~_~
 __r11S _ .. ..rOo, Vr2 712X1 not find t2 C^v:f::rr2 C2 G= Sl;C= .:._. :.fit=.^.=:~' ___ ~:c

 ..::2=rlt t0 0. 1G1'J _::2 claims; the iaT:"1:::.;;2 quoted ...,^.JV2 c_.~=l...cG ~_. C_':._.'.= ",.G SilOwanC2 il:,^a2SS vie -1:1C' SG: :2V~_^.o c1S2 i.'1 t1:2 A :"r2u:.-.^.'_.-,. -W.= ~c_23 ~_..,.~ _--_'a a1:"ay. This bT'i:dS us to the `G1S2Sti0::~ 17_:iC''..:2 ~2;_t='=a:~c'::.;2r _.:.;c_

 laC2S~ 1"J St else is in the A~.'ement -hat could be cla-'
 g.5:. I2c by ~. ;,ic12 IV, Section 1?
 C, I

            .

·Sqor .z-2ul ,-o uo-=-ZOCa 2v,.^,. lq Sl~-JO-TMS !::O OT -OO.zO- OJ.ChI uTI.LLb`:r.I2L"LO OL,,T'.G. OS?:0 :.?Ljj. VT ·GOT,(~.u^,^-'~C'.4~L` 570 LT07t,7 .:a.i_^_.71~ 5:.0-.^·02S SQL[;. 01 '.}CCCSOJ 2T~.-hl SJ.OhlSST^ Du-';' S'IOT:,.SO?:'J TT'2

2"T ?O 20^_7 2':,7^ Li'J ~~2PTA@ S-q1, S2 li'ZUO ^;.O\ ·7:.07=-TCA'JJAC S-7 L%O
 'C' ~cy.:_2'J-0;,:2 Ii 'J~C~'w;.q S- 2TV_ 5:.2·::.1 ,i.0 M-^q.'^TOA L'l.'.O S-U ~.O 22110 ~.^.-,.»2
 _ _ 1;.0770 J,-,,' K~',70 ST_22(D UO`_=22S -2qT ·2C7q IOU ST^O577S li 5'.;CTf,~C r
 _,, r-'= Li0 ._')2-- -~2__G 1121 11;1.'3 L S- U02S
                              ~~2'J 257- "L',1 2.- ',_- =0',7

_ - ?__..^.2\ 2'J,? U_O-^-C2^ ~~` `2 ~C-- S- LICT"2710 .2LT7- '.:.0 ._ :- , C
 L _ `?^,O"'a .i. ,·o-i:: 12u<T ~r57222Jn';,.' 2LT^-'r .,T-O -^rJ'~_: .i.vC^._'J li`uO 2;,_=,
 - J F, - _ _ _
-C 2°'_'.?7C 2 ,.'_257-^.^9',T.":1 20572_'.2 :-~ OTT ~nS'S'JI ^1- St2S w~q^...'2~1, T2.'= 2\ 2·_ ::_OL?
            o._

'2:;C27-52_'. L'.- 2: ,.25:0 ? -,'.:OC--l.'1!2C.0j Cc jJ'L710:J S-i._= :r2 __ I1771-x2 2:';.
      C- ,:_2571 T`2'.^,.-1772 S=;:,aT__'_ 11~-.LC-'v.25 .IT_2L1= S2 p2.^r?55:2.^_-..C.'= T2 :1 Sc

    - ra._^ ._c_ _ S2 a a n an ^ n ^~ ^C-° _ _ 2F;-SC

      n.,~.T ~. .. ,r S;Da ~2~0..rO.7.G.· 70 S~2_5._ ·:C-=^^'. _ 9


.= -S ~S',;.CC '2 ~7TLT,-'J

    ^172,,

0 ?~;:C 2 . '_'_. -.^,2J T.^,OJ^_,?~:--f-,'`JO'Zi.2S S- 717!.1 J707 ~)W`O^ 27
                                            .


.52C,_·^,"J,L2'T= 5;:.2~T0·.T S? 72.^,.22.:.7 2 ; D~^CUS 2' 1a2'::..~0-G'.;:2 ST' .',:-J',;u7_2=27 5T? ^S;,n-r . . 25 CSTb CO-^.rC2S '2;; = ' _ CS _A :-2G.J`202^ ., i'7:~_',lw ....,',;.1:J.:.3'dLV.O jos-pc ~.O-1cS72;'.'_0^ JT__''_1 .::.1 2C^T~20 01 2,:_2~115221CTS:,5:2 LS^,,^.S · j 9bl L ·^2'-C-.^,yl h.,


'.w2.' v L0·J, -0;7 D-,-^. O'~::1 SaorOTu.:I2 01 ^., ^CCS2,7 L,_;:.1 -__:.,_ ;~-- S2aT..=:77.77_ 2 S:.C-^,^OS~A - 2TC-.·'y· =2L'^, 1:=~^.__ 2;72 .~q ^2y.-. _' : S r '^O.:',.:= ?2'."lT'.:SIT ,:.0 2:~^S^,=G...'_'.'.S'1CSi. 531,1 257.1^cTJ S-?-= _


                C--7n on

"/ UO>=22S ~Al 0 LC .^,..7 Ti' ,r^ ..,,^.O
 ? ~. , ~', a°20u2?J-S27 i:.- 2':2570 L' 7J.T'.102u. 10'u. S20t) LTC-LT':y~ 25;1'.?- 2' i ,'.
 -- 'r';J..T- - ?!::', O y`O!:. -- 52 li-ILI^^-..i:2 u5`3.'J STLT= `iiL".`^."^2~)
                                        S'- .72;:

- _ °" -~ .;-8710 -_ -20J2'JTS2J_ i7T_ 2;o'.I2L'O ., D2J'7102,7 Ju\; :v · _J1 : .... 770
                                              ?-TSC:.


-;.-- - _- J-~_22 , _ aowa_-.a~3`.-a cw sa:,.-
                            ~: -n,2-r s-`. ^-T~T ._ _


'._ . ~. .. _ ·u .'J -?5.: _,.,.':00 ?~.^J y :'J ~ OL; On.T 02 -L=, _,',.L2 2q40`^.C.'.1 .. NLSC`,___ -
    AWARD N0. 144

    CASE N0. SG-25-E

    SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


SPECIAL CONCURRING OPINION OF CARRIER MEMBERS
The Board rejected the Organization's argument in this case that Article IV, Section 4 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement entitled a protected employee to refuse a higher rated position at a point in excess of 30 miles from his former cork location on the Organization's theory that such a ova automatically required a change in residence.

 The Dissenters now incorrectly assert that the Agreement, and in particular Article IV, Section 4, was interpreted as though the language "Which does not require a change in residence" was not present.

 This Opinion is submitted to emphasize the fact that the Organization misrepresents the nature of the Board's award. The Neutral did not write the above-quoted language out of the agreement. He simply made it abundantly clear that the Claimants' contention that whenever an employee takes a position in excess of 30 miles from his residence a change of residence automatically is considered as being required is not supported by the agreement or interpretations.

 The Carrier's position was that whether a change of residence was required in a particular case depends upon the facts of that case. It is apparent from reading the entire Opinion that the Neutral subscribed to this construction and concluded that the facts presented here did not lead to the conclusion that a change of residence was required. Thus, it is apparent the Neutral did not expunge any language from the Agreement but rather he addressed himself to the issues presented by the parties and his findings clearly reflect this conclusion.

                                        v