n-TTES ) Tht, At::=i<-.on, Tno^ka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 TO TI1F ) -T:c:stern Lines-
 and
 DISYLTl~` ) Transpor ration-Cornmunication Employees Union

 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: To avoid loss of allowance as computed
 under Article IV, Section 1, must an
 employee who knows that his position
 soon will be abolished, refrain from
 _ applying for positions advertised to
 be vacant?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant occupied a position at Hazleton, Kansas,
 when a position as Agent-Telegrapher at Freedom, Okla
 homa, became vacant. On September 7, 1965, Claimant
 bid the vacancy and was awarded it on September 14, effective
 September 20.

 According to the Organization, Claimant knew at the time he filed his bid that his Hazleton position was to be abolished and he therefore would be required to exercise seniority to obtain another position. It was for this reason, the Organization said, that Claimant bid on the Freedom assignment. Carrier contends that under Article IV, Section 3, Claimant is not entitled to have his compensation preserved. His bid allegedly was a normal exercise of seniority "by reason of a voluntary action," since he had not been advised as of September 7 that his position was to be abolished. That, advice was conveyed to him on September 10, several days after he made his bid.

 If Claimant knew: that the Hazleton position was being abolished, his action three. days prior to official notification would not convert his bid into a voluntary exercise of seniority.
                                    Case No. TCU-21-·r7


The bid would not then fall %:·ithin the restriction of Article
 IV, Section 3. The fact is ":h;~t on August 18, 1965, the Kansas
 State Corporation Commission considered carrier's application
 " i
 to discontinue the service:; ,:.: '_:.S t.~;ant-telegrapher at its station at Hazleton, Barber r,c,t.ntv, Kansas." Authority to discontinue the station eras c;rz:r3-;-~a am the order was mailed on August 27, 1965.

 There is no reason to doubt that Claimant knew of the order by the time he made his bid on September 7. His position was indeed abolished on September 17. He remained there until that date, and his assignment in Freedom was effective on Monday, September 20.

 At most what is involved here is a technical question and not one of substance. But under Article IV, Section 3, the determination must rest on the facts, not on appearances. When Claimant occupier? the Freedom position, the Hazleton job had vanished, which proves his assertion of knowledge that this was to occur.

 By September 17, Claimant would have been obliged to displace another employee. He anticipated this not due to voluntary choice but on the basis of sound information, although Carrier was not the direct source at the time. Under the circumstances, this case cannot be construed as one in which the employee has voluntarily exercised his seniority.

                        A W A R D


                Under the specific facts of this case, the answer to the Question is No.


                            Milton Friedman

                            Neutral Member


Dated: July 3, 1971
        Washington, D. C.