PARTIES ) Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of I3aintenancc of Way Employes

 QUESTION Is Section Laborer Robert 1d. Bar ton
 AT IsSUr: entitled to twenty-nine (29) days'
 pay as a result of not being afforded
 his seasonal. protective guarantee in
 1965?
 OPINION Mr. Barton worked 160 days in 1904. He was
 OF BOARD: lai_C, off on November 30, 1904, and filed Form 2740-A
 in accordance. wii.h the rules to protect his seniority.
 On the foam he specified than he would accept recall to Sections
 46 and 48.



Carrier did not recall 24r. Bar ton until June, 1965, and as a result he worked only 131 days in that year. The Employes contend that Carrier violated the agreement in failing to offer him 160 days of employment. According to Carrier, there was no obligation to offer him employment on sections other than those he specified on Form 2740-A. Carrier cites Article II, Section 1, which provides that protected status "shall cease" if an employee fails to obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority.

 The restrictions which Idr. Barton placed upon his service were in accordance with the rules. They do not relieve Carrier of the obligation subsequently specified in Article I, Section 2. That provision is unrestricted and requires that employment be offered seasonal employees in 1965 equivalent to that in 1964.
                                    0

                                    Case No. f:7-32-SR


Although the claim was not filed until December 16, )_966, it cannot be considered untimely. The Employes had sought unsuccessfully from September, 1965, on to obtain from Carrier information about Mr. Barton's status. It was not until November 16, 1966, that the information which led to the claim was made available to the Employes.

                        A Z'7 A R D


              The An sorer to the Question is "Yes."


                        .~.~l~.iL 1~-~._--fMilton Ffiednnarr Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 June 10, 1969