PARTIES ) Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Pray Employes

 QUESTIO'_Q Is each claimant (identified in Ataach
 A`P ISSUE: ment "A" to our notice to Messrs. Wolfe
 and Leighty and identified within the
 "Employes' Statement of Facts" of the
 Employer' e:c p arte submission) entitled
 to be paid for all time he has not been
 permitted to work on or after !,!arch
 1.965, and to be made whole for paid vaca
 tY0T1S, holiday pay, health anC't l'7elfe:_:v,
 and any and all other similar benefits,
 because o~: -the faill:re of the Carrier to
 return him to and/or retain him in compen
 sated service at his guaranteed compensation





OPINION
 OF BOARD: In the statement of Carrier's position, it is
 noted that "this issue involves the Employer' pro
 priety and timeliness in the handling of the indivi
 dual claims making up this dispute." The procedure pursued
 by the Employer originated in a letter from Carrier dated
 April. 20, 1965, which states, in part:

                                    AT'7ARD NO. W

                                    Case No. I~ry~7-12-6d


              between us we will consider claims filed directly -with this office as being validly filed.


Despite the foregoing, on July 21, 1965, the Employer were advised by Carrier to file claims in accordance with the Rules Agreement of August, 1954. However, they were filed with the Vice President--Labor Relations in accordance with the April 20 letter. The Employes stated that the understanding in the letter precluded a subsequent unilateral determination by Carrier. After the Interpretations of November 24, 1965, had been issued, the claims were once again filed with the Vice ieresident-Labor Relations. They were again disallowed.

 Contractual procedures for handling claims have been enforced consistently in this industry. Hut in this case the parties specif3.calJ.y waived regular procedures, as evidenced by Carrier's letter, which treated "claims filed directly with this office as being validly filed." That was to be done "until such time as a procedure is established between us."

 Having thus agreed upon a method for handling claims, and having agreed that it would prevail until some mutually acceptable alternative sari reached, carrier was unjustified in issuing instructions to the contrary and then declining the claims when the Employer refused to accede to the unilateral instructions. The claims were filed in accordance with an understanding that required mutuality in order to change it. Therefore, the issue is properly before the. Committee on its merits.

 All but one of the 44 claims filed by the Employer concern men alleged to have been in active service on October 1, 1964, and who qualified as protected employees, but were subsequently furloughed. Either they were not returned to active service by I-larch 1, 1965, or they were furloughed thereafter. Ono employee, Robert G. Jenkins, had been furloughed in September, 1964, but he averaged at least seven-days, work for each month furloughed during 1964, according to the Employer. Thus, as described by the Employer, 22r. Jerkins ryas a protected employee and pursuant to Article I, Section 1, was required to be "retained in compensated service" on and after March 1, 1965.

                        -2_

                                          AWARD No.

                                                    a


                                          Case No, rya-12-W


Carrier offered no proof° to support its allegations that some of the employees were seasonal and that others "failed to obtain and retain employment pursuant to their rights" after February ,7, 1965. Unsubstantiated assertions cannot prevail.

 Neither the Agreement nor the Interpretations envisage a "seven-day test" for employees in active service on October 1, 1964, as eras urged by Carrier. Award 14 faithfully applies the Agreement in holdi.ng that an employee who is subsequently furloughed is in no "different category than any other employee in active service who worked continuously after October 1, 1964." Claimants mere therefore entitled to be returned to active service before March 1, 1905, and to be retained thereafter in compensated service.

                      A W A H D


The answer to the question is "Yes", and the claimants are entitled to those benefits provided for in the Agreement of February 7, 1965, and its interpretations, without prejudice to any benefits provided by other agreements pertaining to paid~r
                                                        ~`~


vacations, holiday pay, health and welfare and any and all her-~ similar benefits which do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Committee,

                          ~ 7 ·,f~ ~ ~ J~,ithC.6~

                        Milton Frl(~dr~,f/n

                        Neutral Member


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

 - 3 -