PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and ._
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 QUESTIONS (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Article I,
 AT ISSUE: Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1 of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement when Messrs. J. K. Jones and Leroy
 Owens, both of whom held regularly assigned positions
 on October 1, 1964 were subsequently declared fur
 loughed by the Carrier who now contends the employees
 failed to meet the 'active service' requirements of
 the February 7, 1965 Agreement, thus denying them
 protected status thereunder? (Employees' Exhibits
 1(a) , 1(b) and 1(c) .)
 (2) Shall the Carrier now be required to consider Messrs.
 Jones and Owens protected employees under Article IV,
 Section 1 and reimburse them for any monetary losses
 sustained as provided by the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The facts indicate that the position of Claimant Owens was
 abolished on November 14, 1964, and also that Claimant Jones
 was displaced from his position on November 10, 1964. It is
 the Organization's contention that since both employees were
 in active service as of October 1, 1964, with two or more years
 of employment relationship on that date and fifteen or more days of compen
 sated service during 1964, they are required to be retained in service pur
 suant to Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.
 Further, any employee who is on furlough on February 7, 1965, and met the
 conditions prescribed in Article I, Section 1, will be returned to active
 service before March 1,, 1965.

 In this context, the organization argues that Owens was a furloughed employee and, therefore, should have been returned to active service before March 1, 1965. With respect to Jones, the organization contends that he is on the extra list or extra board and, similarly, entitled to a protected status until July 23, 1965, when he obtained a military leave of absence.

 The Carrier argues that Jones was furloughed during the months of December, 1964, and January and February, 1965. He remained furloughed, thereafter, performing extra service during the months of April, May and June, 1965 and last performed service on June 29, 1965. Subsequently, he resigned on December 21, 1967.
                        - 2 - Case No. CL-30-W


In this regard, Award No. 63, SBA No. 605, provides, "that employees furloughed after October 1, 1964, will be returned to 'service". Therefore, in view of the Carrier's statement that he remained furloughed, he is entitled to compensation commencing on March 1, 1965.

 Inasmuch as we have previously analyzed the arguments of the parties with respect to extra list and furloughed employees, we adhere to ._ our determination reached in CL-21-W, Award No. 125.

                        Award


          Answer to question (1) and (2) is in the affirmative.


                  i


                    rray· ohman

                    Neutral Member


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