SPECTAL BOAID OF ADJUSTI-:,,iv'T NO. 605


PARTIES ) Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Cc:npany
 TO Ti-L: ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of V9ay Employes

 QUESTION "is Section Laborer Willie Randle a pro
 AT ISSUE: tected employee under the provisions of
 Section 1 of Article I of the Agreement
 dated February 7, 1965?"
 OPINION Claimant holds seniority on District :;o. 1. He
 OF BOARD: was furloughed in July,. 1963. in 1964, he vcr:l:ed
 167 days in District Nos. 3 and 4, sufficient to
 satisfy the "seven-day test" for active service in Article I,
 Section 1, if all service is counted.

 Page 4 of the Interpretations dated November 24, 1965, contains the following:

            Oucstion No. 10: Can employment in more

            than one seniority district in the same

            craft on the sF-me carrier be counted in

            determining protected status?


            Answer to Question No. 10: Yes, provided

            the employee acquired and retained seniority

            on each seniority district or roster or was

            transferred to another seniority district

            or roster at the request of management for

            temporary service. Otherwise, no.


Rule 2(f) of the working agreement provides that seniority is restricted to one district. Thus a determination in this case hinges upon whether or not Claimant worked in the other districts at the request of Carrier.

 According to Claimant, he was "sent" by Carrier's supervisor and roadmaster. He wrote, "Everywhere I want they sent me." The roadmaster stated that "we informed Randle that this work was available, if he desired to do this extra work.
                                  TAT R

                                  A,n_..CD NO.

                                  Case No. I:::-1~-;:'::


lie ...worked for some time but solely on his own. ~e di_cl net demc:nd that he accept this 41ork. " ire added that dC:;':ands %.,,--re never made of an employee to work in another district. The supervisor also said that "wc have never told any man 're had to leave his home Seniority District."

 Carrier obviously needed men in the ocher 6istricts and, while Claimant could not be ordered there, he could be requested to go. Lha t his acquiesces-ce was volur.tary--as it had to be--would not alter the fact tna.t :.-_ responded to a request. Carrier provided transportation by bus, which demonstrates a positive encouragement for Claimant to take the position, as distinguished from a mere an:.ouncement that work was available. Camp cars were also provided.

 Unlike "demand," "request" is a mild noun. It anticipates that the requestee may accept or decline that which is asked. In this case, Claimant favorably responded to management's proffer of work in other districts, and thereby ca:;e within the ambit of Question No. 10.

                      A W A R D


            The answer to the Question is Yes.


                        h~ilton Fr iedcfan, Neutral Meniuer


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


-2-