PARTIES ) Brotherhood of F,aiiway, Airline and Stea.-.s::i? Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE and
 New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Co:L_a.y

 QUES170`S



              the current Cleric' a.Oree::,ant by _a__i;y and refusing to afford iir. L. Severson, Seniority Bate, January 2, 1945, continued e:::?loy:-:c-at, and,


              (2) Shall Carrier now be rewired to pay yes. Z. Severson $21.922; pc day, co=ancino June 26, 1966 and each day thereafter until the Carrier and the brotherhood successfully conclude the handling of this matter.


OPINION, One of the reasons the Carrier initially declined the
 OF BOA-RD: original 'claim was postulated on the orou::d t`at the
 National Agreement of February 7, 1955, was not ef-
 fective on this property per order of the U. S. District Court, until
 July 1, 1905. Further, it was the Carrier°s position that the AuJust
 19, 1956 letter agreec_^.nt, "contemplated that there would be no ap
 plication of the February 7 Agreement to any changes which nay have
 occurred prior to July 1, 1965."

 In view of Award No. 26, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment ho. 606, this portion of the Carrier's arouaen t is no;a academic. Hence, the basic question posed herein revolv=wound Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Pzreem-ant.
 -Specifically, under what circumstances, relevant herein, does protected employee displaced because of a reduction-in-force, lose such status? Section 1 provides that such will occur "in case of his resignation, death, retirement, dismissed for cause in accordance with existing agreements, or failure to retain or obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights, or failure
 to accept employment as provided in this Article."'

 The Carrier argues that a failure by to e--?loyee to obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his se_.ier=ty rights will cause the employee to lose his protected status. =herefOre, Rule 45 Of the effective A.-=eement i5 a2p1iCab1=: I:: O.^. t..2 2.^..ployee only and, it ecphasizes, that such oSli.-atio;: is confined solely to the employee. In this regard, the pertinent portion of Rule 45 0: the,effective Agreement provides as folloc:s:
                                      :_:;.;-:: :;o. .-

                                      ~,.st: ::o. ~:.-27-.


      n ~ _ . ,.__

      If ri.,,ht of selection ,a not r.:ade wita:~r, suc· .... t:.-.._

      limit, the e:ploye affected trill be assign^.:~c to tw._


      ..

      posit~.on

      Filled by t1:o junior e::",; 1 oyc .. t"::u sor:; c_~ty district whose position h. is qualified to fii'' :ai.ling to accept such assig:v.;nt the employe will-lose a_., previously established scniority."


            Conversely., the Organization argues that ___~c1e ~1, Sec-

                .

tion 1, places an eoligation on both parties to abit:e :,y the effective
 agr2en;znt, f_:nce, the Organization urges that pursuant to Rule C;S, it
                            -

was incumbent upon the Carrier to assign the Clai-:ant to t".^~ junior position on his roster that he was qualified to perform, w::en he failed to exercise his seniority rights. Thereafter, in the event t;.e employee failed to accept such assignment, ha would then lose his established seniority.

 It appears to us that this question has been partially answered in .ward No. 4. It is also our view that there is a con comitant relationship insofar as this provision is concerned. "In accordance with existing rules or agreements," require a -mutual adherence to the provisions of the effective agreement othe property. lIence, under Rule C;S, it cons obligatory upon the Carrier to assign t~e Claimant to a position he was qualified to fill.

                  Award


            Answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the affiruative.


                          ~i


                Murray i`r Roh:^an Neutral/h?amber


- Dated: Washington, D.C.
 March 7, 1969