PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Houston Belt and Terminal Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement when it removed A. Stoner, A. Jenkins
 and Frank Thompson from the protected status of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to return these employees
 to the protected status as prescribed in Article I of
 the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 (3) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate A. Stoner,
 A. Jenkins and Frank Thompson the wage losses they
 suffered on and after March 1, 1965?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The parties are in agreement that the claimants are pro
 . tected employees pursuant to Article I, Section 1, of the
 February 7, 1965 National Agreement. The position of o
 Claimant Stoner was abolished on December 10, 1964,
 Claimant Thompson on December 16, 1964, and Claimant Jenkins on March 1,
 1965. Thereafter, the organization contends that they reverted to a fur
 loughed status, whereas the Carrier argues they were on the Extra Board
 List. Although the Organization alleges that Claimants Stoner and Thompson
 were not returned to active service by March 1, 1965, the Carrier denies
 such allegation and responds by the statement that "All of the Claimants
 were being used for extra work and were eligible and working in February
 of 1965 and also March 1, 1965.

 It is the Carrier's contention that the Claimants lost their protected status pursuant to Article I, Section 1, or even if considered as furloughed employees, they fall within the purview of Article II, Section 1. In support of the latter contention, the Carrier cites Question and Answer No. 4, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations. The gist of the answer therein, requires a protected furloughed employee to respond to . a call for extra work in order to preserve his protected status. Isolated instances should be handled on an equitable basis.

 In this regard, the Carrier itemizes the record of each of the Claimants for the months of March and April, 1965. With respect to Stoner, he worked 24 days, off sick 11 days, called--no answer 14 days. Jenkins worked 19 days, called--no answer 15 days, refused work 2 days. Thompson worked 13 days, called--no answer 26 days.
                        -2- Case No. CL-28-W


The Carrier, further, insists that by mutual understanding, the established calling procedures have been in effect on the property in excess of 25 years. In addition, these Claimants held positions on the extra list in the past and were fully aware of the callin.- procedures.

 In our view, the record amply supports the Carrier's contention that the Claimants herein consistently failed to respond to calls.

                      Award


            Answer to questions 1, 2 and 3 is in the negative.


                              1'er~ le.14~15,w

                  Murrayr-Id Rohman

                  Neut a Member


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 August 7, 1969