pAP~Yl~>S ) Brotherhood :?y

TO ) Freight 1'.andlCrs, Ex;J-Iocs :;d St~tion "_p=c, Y
DISi'u7::: ) an;l
 pern ~elitr%il ',~ _ . ^ .
                          T ,

                      (uO::r1;Cr 1 '.S) YO'r1Cy l,sil Cu:.Ve" ';.n:'

                      Railroad ._:'.~G::G

                            ' co:'.n ; )

                      fa


Q U_? S'fI0:`s
 AT ISSUS: (1) Did tho Carr"-Cr viol<:L.^. ,. ,
                the te_-i:. ox t~ 2'r;a'_,_~`.Ga A~YCCT:CP~ wi;ea it faiicd <,nd ref:a~... t0 '_ -:;i':-jy CO:T:'.. pen5at8 lu%. 1.. C. lial!v,'y, sC':aU'rity Cate L;. _,-liu5, on the Few 1taven TiC1:Ci: 0·f'iice Ros't er


            (2) Sall Claiiant B: uby note bc: Jid ; 24..103 pCY da,

            '

                CGi"::.enCin" .L.eptC:"iJCS: 12, 1965, Ui:dei: tiuC tCi.`.^S C<

                                                i

                the 2'.diaticn A~re~ment?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: With great difficulty, we vc:.-e able to -.].can fro tl;e par~i.as'
 submissions, the following facts:

 On Aril 219 1965, the position of Clerk-T:.c:;ot Seller awarded to a new CL3plot'eo, 1'7. p. OOntO-.s. On SCptemb_r 11, 1960, the iattCr resigned. Prior to this date, the Ciair.:ant held the R0Su1a.r Relief J.'oaiCioa 1110. 1, as Ticket Seller. Following the rCsignation of Coi:tUis, ta- f·,ri:ier abolished Relief poSition ?'.o. 2, end rearral;ed and re,advertised the S:U'_k assigirnents of positions 005, 006., 008 and Relief 1';0. 1. Thereafter, Cizimant bid for position 003 with a rate. of $115.91. ii: this regard, ti:e Cai:i-icr alleges that Claimant could have bid on Relief Position No. 1, with rate 04' $116,.62. Of course, if tile Or,--,aniZatl.0:1 S position 1.S sustained, G.i: S)Oi:1C't 1'.'2~cessarily apply Article IV, Section 4,, provided that the record supports the Carrier "in this respect.

 The question presented herein is uhether Article IV, Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 national. Agreei::ent, is applicable to the ~lair.:ant. The parties are in agree=nt <.s to the Carrier's ri:it to abolish an unneeded position. However, the Carrier argues, further, that as a resL;lt of the resignation. of Contois and the concurrent abolishir,cnt of Relief position No. 2, it "necessitated the re<zssigrrient of hours and -rest days of four of the remaining positions."

 The significance of the Carrier's action is further emphasized by tile fact that inasmuch as the Organization failed to reiutc tile --n-ecessity aspect:, it is doomed to be admitted. We repeat, tile Carrier asserts that upon the failure of the Organization to rebut its assertion that the rcL°si-i:.^..ent of the other four positions was occassioned by the resignation of Contois and aboiishxent of one job, i.oso facto, the Carrier is cleared of a violation of Article IV, Section 1.

 In effect, the Carrier states the procedursl'rule to be 1S -that
      t a failure to de=y each , nd every alicl-ation is tanCa-:oun- to a n c'.

t mission. TnoreforC, having, failed t0 COny the nCCessitozs C:1ar:~Ctcr O'_ the various reassi-n:°nts, it stands to reason that the Cla._=._-,.t 's bid was a VOL1n"ary
                                                      7

· i 1::.1·G niVa _

                                          f

T. GVC. 71Cn1'.e, he '~.- - i.)7.7.1 be CG:;;pC..,aa tC d at the rate G pa ,7 a.ll:: CO:-.~:.~'i0:':G
 of tile job he bids 1::

          Who has the bu_don of =,roving <n a.7.7.e"caicn? ~_. oa v-ca,

          z ·. l c

the party who alle,es a de::ense is req;c~i.oc, to c:::ry ti,,-- L;e.o,~m o_ t~rco=.
 In the instant situation, the ~rf;ElniIQti~n concedes the C::==_,.: h-., C,
 to
                            n . ..

    o abolish an uni:ccess:ry pc,si;ien. iaazca£Ler, i)za the __. .~V ..:.r. ^·ld

reassi^,z',mcnt of four otlic_ jobs voa.uatary ac' 7.oi: of the, C'.r : .:~? Of cG'.:r::G,
 in older to protCCt his status, the CJ.ai%Iant cxcrci*sed h;.s ,.cn_.or:.,:y and o_.d
 for one of the reestablished jobs. L.L;Gtller. his seniority cr.,:_t7.cc hi-, io bid
 for the $116.62 rate instead of the $115.91 rate, CL-1 readily be dete::.-:i:,cci on
 the property.

                                            ..<<

)_n 51171;-.^,1:y, it is our view that. the C11'.,aim ., u:i:GrC1Se 01 seniority did not "all within the voluntary action cOntczplats:d by Articl-a IV, Section 3.

                          Av·ard:


The ansiacr to question (1) and (2) is in th; ai'f~.rr-rive. Hoiaever, subject to a determination pursuant to Article TV, Section 4.

                                      i


                          3urray~h1. 72ollman Neutral Member


Dated: Ylashin;ton, D. C.
      November 17, 1969