PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 TO ) and
 DiSPIITE ) 'the Western Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTION
 AT iS51!E: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on The Western Pacific Railroad
 Company that G. L. Neilson is entitled to a, adjust
 ment in compensation under the February 7, 19W Agreement
 because Carrier's unilateral transfer on January 24, 1966,
 of the headquarters of its Signal and Communications
 Department from San Francisco to Sacramento resulted in
 Mr. Neilson being reduced from a Signal Draftsman at
 San Francisco ($661.81 per month) to a TICS Maintainer
 position at Wells, Nevada ($3.098 per hour).
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On October 1, 1964, Claimant, a "protected" employee, we,,
 regularly assigned to the position of TCS Maintainer at
 Wells, Nevada at the rate of pay of $2.998 per ho:m . On
 Dacember L, 1964, he bid and was successfully assigned to
 the position of Signal Draftsman at San Francisco. This position was higher
 raced than that of TES Maintainer ($661.81 per month.)
 On January 1, 1966, Carrier consolidated its Signal and
 Communications Departments, a ,d established the headquarters for the com
 bined departme·ts at Sacramewtn. Claimant, after being advised that his
 position and work was to be transferred to Sacramento, elected to return
 t< !Jells, Nevada displacing a junior employe occupying a position of MS
 Maintainer.
 The Organization contends that under the terms of the
 February 7 Agreement, Claimant's protected rate of pay as of January 24, 1966.
 (the time of the transfer back to Wells, Nevada) was that of a Signal
 Draftsman and was thereafter e.,titled to that rate even though he was re
 duced from Signal Draftsman to TCS Maintainer.
 Section 1, Article IV of the February 7 Agreement reads
 as inflows:
 "Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of this










                                            Case No. SG-13-W


                        _ j _


              Section 3, Article IV reads:


              "Section 3. Any protected employee who in the normal exercise of his seniority bids in a job or is bumped as a result of such an employee exercising his seniority in the normal way by reason of a voluntary action, will not be entitled to have his compensation preserved as provided in Sections 1 and 2 hereof, but will be compensated at the rate of pay and conditions of the job he bids in; provided, however, if he is required to make a move or bid in a position under the terms of an implementing agreement made pursuant to Article III hereof, he will continue to be paid in accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of this Article IV."


Question and Answer No. 1 interpreting Section 3 is quoted as follows:

              "Question No. 1. If 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 job even though it may carry a lower rate of pay than the job he is holding, what is the rate of his guaranteed compensation thereafter?"


              "Answer to Question 1. The rate of the job he voluntarily bids in."


Sections 1 and 3 of Article IV, (considered together with Question and Answer No. 1 interpreting Section 3) mean that a protected employe's guaranteed compensation shall not thereafter be less than the normal rate of compensation he was entitled to on October 1, 1964, unless the employe voluntarily chooses to take a lower rated position. If he chooses to take the lower rated position, then the rate of that position becomes his guaranteed rate of compensation. The language does not provide, as the Organization contends, for an upward adjustment of the guaranteed compensation rate (except, of course, for general wage increases).

                      AWARD


              The answer to the question presented is in the negative.


                ~Nicholas H. Zuma

                            r

                    Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 Mav 26, 1969