7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement with amendments effective February 22, 1980. Pursuant to a July 22, 1985 bulletin, the Carrier abolished Livestock Clerk Position No. 2213, a regular assignment at Parsons, Kansas, which Claimant had continuously occupied since 1958. The abolishment was effective at the end of Claimant's tour of duty on August 5, 1985. The next day, Claimant exercised his seniority to the position of Consolidated Agent, with a daily rate of $102.15, also located at Parsons. Claimant's protected rate was $2,977.84 per month, premised on the monthly rated seven-day-a-week Livestock Clerk position. On August 30, 1985, the Carrier advertised an AgentTelegrapher position at Coffeyville, Kansas, rated at $2,827.52 per month. Claimant did not bid on the Coffeyville vacancy. If
Claimant had bid on the vacancy, he would have been awarded the job. The Carrier offset the difference between the rate of Claimant's Consolidated Agent position and the Agent/Telegrapher position at Coffeyville from Claimant's protective guarantee.
On the property, the Organization asserted that Coffeyville was 59 normal travel route miles from Claimant's residence in Parsons. On the other hand, the Carrier insisted that Coffeyville was slightly more than 30 miles from Parsons. After reviewing the map contained in the record before us, this Board finds that, via the most direct highway route, Coffeyville is 40 miles from Parsons.
The issue in this case centers on the proper interpretation and application of Article IV, Section 4 of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement which provides:
The Organization cites Interpretation No. 3 under Article III of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. The interpretation defines what constitutes a change in residence for purposes of applying Article III, the implementing agreement provision. The interpretation reads:
Claimant seeks the difference between his protected rate and the rate of the Consolidated Agent position he holds in Parsons because, as the Organization argues, taking the Coffeyville job would have required Claimant to change his residence. The Organization stresses that Article IV, Section 4 does not obligate an employee to obtain a higher rated position than the one he occupies if the higher rated position would necessitate a change in his residence.
The Carrier contends that Article IV, Section 4 permits it to treat Claimant as if he occupied the Coffeyville position because Claimant must acquire a position equal to or greater than his guarantee and, if no such positions are available, Claimant must take the highest rated position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights. Claimant has the implied obligation, in exchange for February 7, 1965 protection, to place himself on the highest rated job on his seniority district to which his seniority entitles him to occupy. The Carrier alternatively argues that if Claimant had assumed the Coffeyville position, he would not have been required to change his residence.
This is not the first time that this Board has been confronted with a dispute concerning the proper interpretation and application of the change of residence clause in Article IV, Section 4 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. The landmark case was Award No. 421. In that decision, we held that the absolute 30-mile measurement for determining a residence change under Article III did not carry over to Article IV, Section 4. This Board observed:
Therefore, the fact that Coffeyville is 40 miles from Parsons does not mean that Claimant was per se required to change his residence. Rather, whether or not an employee would be required to change his residence if he exercised his seniority to a higher rated position at another location is an issue that must be decided on a case by case basis. Previously, this Board ruled that 70 miles (Award No. 134), 50 miles (Award No. 135) and 100 miles (Award No. 398) would require an employee to change his residence. In Award No. 421, the 43-mile distance between the employee's residence and the higher rated available position was, in and of itself, insufficient evidence to show that the employee was required to change his residence. However, in each of these
decisions, this Board unequivocally held, consistent with the plain language in Article IV, Section 4, that "a change in residence" remains a salient criterion when determining if an employee is obligated to acquire a higher rated position in line with his seniority. See also Award No. 190. Thus, an employee is not required to bid on and assume any higher rated position available to him on his seniority district when taking the position would require the employee to change his residence.
Aside from the actual distance between an employee's residence and the available position with a higher rate of pay, this Board must evaluate the time and ease of the employee's commute from his current residence to the higher rated available position to determine if taking the latter position would, in a practical sense, compel the employee to move his residence to the location of the higher rated job. In this particular case, Coffeyville is only 40 normal travel route miles from Parsons, which is less than the distance between the two positions involved in Award No. 421. Also, the record evidence indicates that Claimant would have an easy, fast 45-minute commute, over good highways, when driving from Parsons to Coffeyville. In Award No. 421, this Board held that a 45-minute commute was not sufficiently long to require an employee to change his residence.
In conclusion, if Claimant had acquired the Coffeyville position, he would not have been required to change his residence. It follows that the Carrier could deduct from