H. C. CROTTY B. L. SORAH, JR.
 PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER







                            OFFICE OF

                            PRESIDENT

                            -42?5- 21 FILE SBA 1605


                        February 1, 1972 Awards 279-283


Mr. J. J. Berta
 704-06 Consumers Building
 220 South State Street
 Chicago, Illinois 60604
 Dear Sir and Brother:
 For your information, I enclose a copy of Awards Nos. 179 through 283 and Interpretation of Award 169, rendered by Referee Friedman.
          With best wishes, I am

          Sincerely and fraternally yours,


                          L


                            President


Enclosure
    NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE


    1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036/AREA CODE: 202-659-9320


    WILLIAM li. DEMPSEY, Chairman M. E. PARIS, Vice Chairman W. S. h1ACGILI, Assistant o Chairman

    JAMES A. W ILC()X, General Connscl II. E. GREER, Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN. Administrative Secrereryy


                            January 28, 1972


Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 - 7th Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1225 - 19th Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 This will supplement our previous letters with which we forwarded to you copies of Awards of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 There are attached copies of Awards Nos. 279 to 283 inclusive and Interpretation of Award No. 169, ease No. MW-10-E, dated January 27, 1972, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

                            Yours very truly,,


cc: Messrs.
 G. E. Leighty (10)
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 F. T. Lynch (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye
 C. Crotty
 J. Berta
 S. Z. Placksin
 R. W. Smith
 T. A. Tracy (3)
 W. S. Macgill
 M. E. Parks
 J. E. Carlisle
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck

                                    AWARD NO. ~ 7Y

                                    case No. TCU-41-W


PARTIES ) Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Due to being displaced on his position
 as the result of the abolishment of another
 position, H. L. Hansen, in order to retain
 his protected employee status, was forced
 to displace on a position requiring a
 change in residence. Did Carrier violate
 Article III, Section 1 when it refused to
 allow him moving expenses and five working
 days' pay in making transfer to his new
 position?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: According to the organization, Claimant is entitled
 to moving expenses and a day's wages because he was
 required to change his residence as a result of a
 technological, operational and organizational change made by
 Carrier which caused his displacement. Carrier denies both that
 an Article III change occurred and also that Claimant's move was
 the result of his displacement. on the contrary, according to
 Carrier, Claimant moved voluntarily.

 On March 28, 1966, Carrier acquiesced in Claimant's request that he be allowed a day's vacation on March 29 so that he could move. Claimant, who was living in Pekin, Illinois, while he worked at manito, moved his residence to Springfield.

 On March 31, L. W. Boeker advised Carrier that as a result of the abolition of his position at Forest City, he desired to displace Claimant at Manito on April 1. The Forest City station was closed on March 31 when the Illinois Commerce Commission approved that request of Carrier. On March 31 Claimant was advised that he had been displaced and should place
                                    AWARD NO.

                                    Case No. TCU-41-W


himself in accordance with the contract. He thereupon took a position at Ellis, Illinois, some 20 miles from Springfield.

 In order for moving expenses to be due in accordance with the Agreement and the Interpretations, the move must be required as the result of an Article III situation, and not as a result of an employee's voluntary action. There is nothing in this record to indicate that Claimant's change of residence was caused by his displacement following a technological, organizational or operational change. It has been suggested that the proximity in date between the move and the closing of the Forest City station; as well as the small size of this railroad where everyone knew what was going on, demonstrates that Claimant knew he had to move, and therefore it was not voluntary.

 However, this is pure inference. At the time that Claimant asked for a day off to move his residence, no action had yet been taken to displace him. He had not at that time sought to displace any other employee, but had merely moved his residence. Indeed, Carrier's submission noted the existence of a position close to Manito which would not have required a change in residence upon Claimant's displacement.

 Under the circumstances, it must be held that the evidence does not support the claim.

                        A W A R D


              The answer to the Question is No.


                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
        January ~7, 1972


                        -2-