PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District)
 QUESTIO14S
 AT ISSUE: (1)Is Mrs: Joan A. Young a 'protected employe' under
 the Agreement of February 7, 1965?
 (2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirm
 ative, shall the Carrier now be required to re
 store her name to the list of 'protected employer'
 and compensate her for any losses sustained by
 reason of its failure to so treat her?
 OPINION The Claimant, Mrs. Young, was a furloughed employee on
 OF BOARD: October 1, 1964, her position having been bid in by a
 senior employee on September 28, 1964. She did not re
 turn to active service until she was notified on February
 3, 1965 that she was recalled for regular position of;
 Steno-Clerk A-7 at Ashland, Kentucky, which she accepted and advised
 she would report on February 8, as she was permitted to do under the
 rule in the schedule agreement.

 Article I, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 agreement provides in part that .

Mrs. Young had two years or more of employment relationship as of October 1, 1964, end more than fifteen days of compensated service during 1964. Although she was not in active service on October 1, 1964, she accepted a regular assignment on February 3, 1965 and therefore was "restored to active service" prior to February'7, 1965, the date of the Agreement. Mra. Young, having met these requirements, was entitled to be "retained in service" as a protected employee.

 The record before us does not show that Claimant has been denied any compensation due her under the terms of the Agree -nnt, and our award is confined to a ruling that she should have her name restored

,,.

 ' - 2 - Award No. 28

            to the list of "protected" employees as of the effective date of the Agreement. She is not entitled to a finding that she has been denied any compensation or other benefits provided by the Agreement.


                            AWARD


            the answer to Question 1 and 2 is in the affirmative as limited by the above opinion.


                  CARRIER MEMBERS EMPLOYEE ME


                                      i ;.


                                            v


Washington, D. C. - January 28, 1969