PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Stan-ship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT.ISSUE: (1) Is employe Jerry A. Hcuthorne entitled to
 compensation, under Article IV, Suction 1
 of the Agroemnnt, at the rata of the
 position to which he was regularly assigned
 on October 1, 1964, adjusted to include sub
 sequent general wage increases?
 (2) Shall the Carrier now coc:2ansata employe
 Jerry A. Hawthorne for the difference be
 tween his actual earnings and what his
 earnings would have been had the Carrier
 treated the rate of the position he occu
 pied on October 1, 1964 as his minimum rate?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On October 1, 1964, Claimant Hawthorne was the regularly
 assigned incumbent of the position of Claim and Check
 Clerk, rate $23.74 per day. On November 24, 1964, the
 Claimant voluntarily bid for the advertised position of
 Equipment Record Clerk, rate $23.41 per day and was awarded
 said position. PL. held this position until January 3, 1966, at which
 time he was awarded the position of Assistant Chief R:clmim Clark, rate
 $24.99 per day. Hence, the instant claim seeks to obtain for this
 Claimant an additional sum of 33 cents per day, as his protected rata
 from March 1, 1965 to January 3, 1966.

 The issue involved herein is submitted under Article IV, Sections 1 and 3. In essence, Section 1 provides that protected employees shall not be placed in a worse position with respect to compensation than the normal rate for such position as of October 1, 1964. However, this Section also states that ouch is, "(S)ubject to the provisions of Section 3 of this Article IV."

 Section 3 provides, in substance, that any protected employee who in the normal exercise of him seniority, voluntarily bids in a job, will not be entitled to have his compensation preserved under Section 1. In such event, he will be compensated at the rate of pay of the new job. In this regard, the Organization urges that if the voluntary bid occurs before the effective date of the National Agreement, then the latter will not be applicable, insofar as the October 1, 1964 rate is concerned. It also submits in support thereof, two swards rendered by SBA No. 608.

                  - 1 - Case No. CL-2-SE


In our view, the aforementioned awards do not reach the issue posed herein. Ratner, we believe that the interpretation under Article I':, Section s, question No. 1, is more directly in point. it will be noted teat the query is posed as follows: "Ii a protected employe" for one reason or another considers another job more desirable than the one he is holding, and he therefore bids in that fob even though it may carry a lower rate of pay than the job
 .-ie
 is holding, what is the rate of his guaranteed compensation thereafter?" Answer --- "The rate of the job he voluntarily bids in."

                    Award


          The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the negative.


                              'I

                              J'


                :i


                                s


!hurray M Rohman

Neutra Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 January 24, 1969
 ~7~ 1~; ~ i

      ~ ~.,


        P;~

    ~o

        i ~'l


        , V


    ~!