PARTIES ) Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Are employees who were displaced by the
 terms of an Implementing Agreement under
 the Washington Agreement entitled to the
 $400.00 transfer allowance provided in
 Article V and other protected benefits
 provided in the Agreement dated February
 7, 1965?
 OPINION
 OF. BOARD: This is a companion case to Award Nos. :Z2)and
 (Case Nos. TCU-40-;,7 and TCU-62-W).

 However, Carrier also contends that the move made by one Claimant, E. D. May, was due to voluntary action. Ile could have exercised his seniority to bid a position at Waxahachie, Texas, where he had been employed prior to the coordination, rather than displace at Lancaster. Since he was not required to move as a result of the coordination, Carrier contends, benefits in any case would be due neither him nor the employees subsequently displaced as the result of his voluntary exercise of seniority.

 The Organization notes that Claimant May's position was abolished and lie consequently was not limited in his right to displace anywhere in the exercise of his seniority. Although he chose Lancaster, the Union argues, the move was not voluntary in its origins, having been initiated by Carrier's abolition of his position.

 Once C'laimant's position was abolished, nothing in any of the agreements between the parties dictated where he could then exercise seniority to displace. Since he had this right, whatever contractual benefits flora to an employee making
                                      Case No. TCU-74-1-1


such a move are due him and those subsequently displaced. Award No. 208 is in point.

                        A SP A R D


            The answer to the Question is Yes.


                          t4ilton Fried-man

                          Neutral Member


Washington, D. C.
 November /,/,, 1970

                          _2_