NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1275 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, O. C. 20076/AREA CODE: 202-659-9120

 WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman M. E. PARKS, Vice Chairman W. S. MACGILL, Assistant to Chairman
 JAMES A. WILCOX, General Counsel H. E. GREER, Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN. Administrative Secretary

Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

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

 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. 320 to 325 inclusive, dated October 12, 1972, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

cc. Messrs. G. E. Leighty
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye
 H, C. Crotty
 f,J. J. Berta
 S. 2. Placksin (2)
 R. W. Smith
 T. A. Tracy (3)
 W. S. Macgill
 M. E. Parks
 J. E. Carlisle
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                AWARD NO. 3.2 O

                                Case No. TC-BRAC-45-E


            SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) Central Vermont Railway, Inc.
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) TC Division - BRAC

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Are there any provisions in the February 7,
 1965 Agreement which takes away the employees'
 rights to displace on any position his sen
 iority entitles him to displace on, and be
 entitled to the provisions of Article IV,
 Sections 1 and 2, if unable to displace on
 a position within 30 miles of his residence.

              2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, shall R. P. Paul be allowed the difference between the first trick "FO" office, New London, Connecticut, rate of pay and the rate of the third trick White River Junction, Vermont, retroactive too January 1, 1969; shall H. E. Ryan be allowed the difference between the second trick "SA" office, St. Albans, Vermont rate of pay and the rate of relief assignment No. 6, retroactive to May 11, 1969.


OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant Paul was displaced from his position in St.
 Albans, Vermont, and thereupon displaced at White
 River Junction, Vermont, 117 miles away. Claimant
 Ryan was also displaced at St. Albans and he displaced at Mont
 pelier, Vermont, 56 miles distant. In both cases Claimants took
 positions paying lower rates than their protected rates. The
 record indicates that changes in residence were required in
 view of the distances involved.

 According to Carrier, once employees are displaced to locations necessitating a change in residence, they are obliged to take jobs with rates equal to or greater than their former rates, if available; otherwise the employees, voluntarily
                                    AWARD NO. 3"

                                    Case No. TC-BRAC-45-E


selecting lower-paid positions, are to be compensated only at the rate of their new positio-is, pursuant to Article 1V, section 30

 Four positions were available t:o Claimants at distances from St. Albans ranging from 132 wiles, to 236 miles, to 288 wiles to 301 miles. Each paid the same or more as the St. Albans jobs. It is wort`y of note, alt:.ough not controlling, that each employee placed himself on :.he job closest to the position. from which he was displaced.

 Carrier cites Article IV, Section 1, which states that protected employees "shall not be placed in a worse posyci.on with respect to compensation" than their October 1: 1964 rates. Carrier did not place claimant in a worse position, it e·as said; they did it to themselves, since they could readily have occupied positions paying more, which also required a change iniesidence. Thus, in accordance with Article TV, Section 4, this voluntary exercise of seniority to la::er-rated positrons means that the employee must be treated "as occupying she position which he elects to decline," according to Carrier.

 The organization contends that Article rV, Section 4's stricture cited by carrier refers to loss of protected compensation solely where there is a failure to take a position not requiring a change in residence. As to Article 7V, Section 1, i:. was said, Carrier's action in displacing these employees is what put them in a worse position; it was not the employees' action which had that result.

 Article IV, Section 1, is the broad affirmation of y ig'ats guaranteed ;:o employees u:ider the a ebruary 7 Agreement.
 .s the heart of the Agrecmcnt, insuring continuation of the 7_6·J4uste.. Ocd.ober 1, 1964, rate-_ for all protected employees

 The basic guarantee set for ti. is illuminated, ampli fied and/or restricted by various provisions of the Agreement and the Interpretations. One such is in Article IV, Section 4. 1?.a employee may properly be placed in a "worse position" if ha fu;?ls to exercise seniority to a better-paying job than the one he chooses to retain. But this limitation is specifically circumscribed so that it applies only if the available job "does not require a change in residence."

                          -2-


                                                      rI

                                AWARD NO. `3'

                                Case No. TC-BRAC 45-E


A corollary to this is that if a change in residence is required, then the employee cannot be treated as occupying the pos.Mtlua which he elects to decline. Nothing in thv Aqreement a.ndicates that employees must protect their race 7:·> selecting a position no matter where it is located tx-eroughc-°41tt.,2 entice s^niurity district.

 Were <:mpx~.yees r_~l~.geei to _~lec~: a position In i:ini.ca~·, r_-gard-.-ass of the i~ed to change Lesiaence, it ,:ould h,a~-a been ~;ru:G.ru'.less to inoliAse the p'"7r~l6e in Article ~~,T~ Se·~:?Gsn 4, ',.:r%x~_~aing whan `_.bn nrotezted ra"r.es r-ea$e., iS..~'. L:a~i.°3.1~1: ;v~':".·~.:_ _`_;,a_'__f)eY;'.S'f.,~T~, rca;:~ihJJxig ~Et all ,ts n''_rve?d ·_>V ,re Y°~i.`y:F,9:'l~:':: ...".U <~ :;na'vsge :~. zp51deenc'.p. -Art it -a-ni.L ? aL.5umed E-hat her l r anguage ezcployed was intended to be dE-,T old of meaaing and i:yould be read the same way, whether or not reference was made to a change in residence.

 Moreover, use of a single, specific condition demonstrates ah intent not to mace the provision applicable to situations which do not come under the condition. General application certainly cannot be inferred when only a particular qualification is mentioned. If the loss of compensation were to be applicable whether or not a change in residence was necessary, why was this one condition specified in Article IV, Section 4?

 Consequently, it must be held that an employee, who cannot place himself on a job which does not require a change in residence, is not obliged to seek out a position paying the same or a higher rate than the one at which he is protected.

                        A W A R D


            1. The Answer to Question No. 1 is

            No, provided the employee is obliged

            to change his residence.


            2. The Answer to Question No. 2 is Yes.


                          Milton Fr dman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: October /,Z, 1972
        Washington, D. c.