Award No. _190 Case No. CL-15-1:


Pl.f,'il';S ) Bro4:.,.a.-hoo~' .,.: hnih.,::y, Air°li,ie and Stea7::.hip i.ic:a,s,
 TO ) Freichc Hw::die: ;, L=:pre:;s & Station Loployes
 DISPUTE. ) and
 Penn Central (forrwr Leer York, New Haven F Hartford

QUES'rT,rJ:;S
 AT ISSUE: (a) Did the Carrier violate t'= terns of the Mediation
 Agreement currently in effect corm :ncing July 1,
 1965, c. hen it failed to pay Mr. L. Brodeur properly
 September 1, 1965 and each subsequent date thereto?
 (b) Shall Claimant Brodeur now be paid $22.7883 per day
 plus 9 cents hourly effective April 1, 1966?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On January 12, 1965, a Ymorandum of. AgreeTxnt was executed
 which provided for a Central Billing Penrt::-nt at new Maven,
 as a new seniority district. Effective Sep,.-=irber 1, 1965,
 work was transferred from various frei1-iit stations, including
 Sprinnficia, L·anssachusctts. Upon al>oli_sl:,re~t of Claimant's position at; Spring
 field, he uisplxed on a position of Yard Clerk on the Springfield Ya::? Roster,
 with a rate of $21.56'24, as contra=. Led to hi:; former rates of $22.78 88, as General
 Clerk. TherL.fter, t:he instant clam was progressed foe iaie dific.renCC of
 $1.2164 per day.

 The Carrier declined the claim on the ground tl,"t Clam^,ant "failed to exercise his <;eniority rights to secure anotl;er po;,ition wiaic' carries a rate of p.y and compcm,ation exceed-L.ng those of th(~ position he elected to retain, and he should th~refore be, treate:d as occupying t'::_ position ;;hick he elected to decline."

 In turn, the Cjruan-~-atio, argues tlIat :ny other position available to Claimant woul~ have: reauixcd a chan,c,e of residence..



Thus, in issue herctn, is the question whether Claimant was obligated under Articln TV, Section ·'r, of the :ebruary 7, 1965 National Agreement to obtain r.ny one of several positions carrying a higher rate of pay than the una ha displaced : rcsn et SprinjieId. A nu?Oer o,: these positions with higher rates of pay are listed, nanyly, Waterbuy, ltanchcster and Nallin;ford, Conoccticut, without any indication of their distance in mileage fromSpringliuld, Inssacbusetts.

 In order to reach the cr -c of this dispute, the pertinent portion of Sention 4, ' ticle IV, is hereinafter quoted:

              "If a protected employee fails to exercise his seniority rights to secure anotaer available position, which does not r n:;uArn a r_; .n <~ in residnnq-,---." (underline added)


We are also cognirank of the explanation contained in the November 24, 1965 Inter2ratatioris, as stated in Section 3 of Article III, to wit:

              "When chan_,es are mad under items 1 or 2 above which do not result in an erploye being required to ~ rrk in excess of 30 normal travel route miles from the residence he occupiev on the effective date of the chrnge, such employe will not be considered as being, required to chan;, his place of residence unless otherwise aLreed."


Additionally, we would note that in Award No. 144, the Bo<cd therein stated as follows:

              "We do not agree. There is nothing in the provisions o; the 1'ebruary 7, Agrooment or the Agreed Upon Inter1 stations which alto:::. an employe to take a lower r4tcd position and be compensated at his protected rate if the equal or higher rn'vesl position is'--excess of 30 norral travel rout^ miles from the reside,: a he occupies on the effecZive date of tire chant,c,


Furthermore, attach& thereto is a vigorous Dissent by the labor h--isbcrs as well as a Special Conouzri"; OpinAon of Carrier 1feubers.
 Award No. _1.0_0
 Case No. CL-15-E

 In essence, the Organization arl;ues that whenever an employee has an option of selecting a poeition in excess of 30 miles from his residence, it automatically falls within tit- context of Section 4. The Carri.er, on the other hand, conce<1 ., that Section 4 of Article IV, negatively provides for a situation 1otLj.ch entails .: change of residence. Therefore, in order to fall withIn the ambit of whether a chanl;e of residence is required, necessarily, would depend upon the facts in that pa ocular case.

 Predicated upon the historic:.l development of this phrase since the Washington Job Protection Agreement, the Organi;;·tion, in real4.ty,. premises its thrust on the ground that the 30 mile:: provision is a measurement--a yard stick--which should not be ignored nor debilitated by us.

 We are keenly awar of the vital concepts presen :~d by the opposing arguments of the parties. We are furthermore firmly convinced that the phras_, "which does not require a chanp in residence," may not be eliminated from our consideration in the inst it dispute. A careful exami-t;:jtion of the submissions reveal that clain:~<:t's position at Springfield, Massachusetts, was abolished. Thereafter, the Carrier alleges that at least four other positions were available in Connecticut, with higher rates of pay. It would appear obvious at this juncture, without further details, that these otl·:r positions would undoubtedly entail a change of residence. We would be imp_ii<(_d to this conclusion, regarc'less, whether we adopted tl : 30 miles criterion as a ma_uring stick or evaluated it on the basis of the f.^cts of tl:a p rticular case. In this posture, w:: are not in a position to - ,.ermine who ter omission of distances were desi.;ned for reasons of obfuscation.

 Therefore, it is our considered view, that Claimant did not fail to exe..eise his seniority rights pursuant to Article IV, Section 4.
                      AWARD


          The answer to Questions (a) and (b) is in the affirmative.


                  'i


                            i

                /l,!l<_~ '%'~'~i`-.%~ - _!~,~%G!C!/1..!.-~_____

                      Murray M. Rohlnan

                      Neutral ~unnbar


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 January 19, 7.970