This clause wasn't in operation during the 767 RIN. It was added in EA9. The last 767 left in Dec 2014. The EA is dated 19/8/2015.
The company doesn't have to force a move to the 737, merely offer what they interpret to be a "higher status" position. If a named pilot fails to take said "higher status" position then, under this clause, they lose the ability to displace more junior pilots in a higher status.
What is a higher status position? You and I may have one view, the company may well have another. Will AIPA take it to FWC if a pilot's interpretation differs from the company's? I doubt it very much. The point is, this clause is very grey, in spite of what many people are confidently stating in relation to their personal plan and the expected outcome of said plan in a RIN. The only consistent outcome I've seen in several RINs is the outcomes are often unexpected.
Truth be told, I don't really care one way or the other. It doesn't affect me. I also may well be wrong. I'm just suggesting it's worth reading it closely and, in any future personal planning, seeking advice from AIPA and the Company about the application of said clause to ensure all relevant information is to hand before deciding when and how to shuffle those bids above and below the line.