PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airlinc and Stc;m:;1J_n_ C:
 TO ) Freight :a'ldlers, :1.7ress & Sta'Cio:l :,il~yeG
 DISPD'112 ) __;
 Chosapaa!ce and Ohio Railway Com,any (Ghcsa)a_::ce 7
 QuESTlO:CS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Are _._ Patricia 2:. lc=own and :LT::. t~:r;


(2) r





of BOARD: C1a1.i;1-_^,ntS YCKown -rid Collie- wi.rO. 1uri.OL;~'h~d 0Ct0,Gr 1, i9:J6,
 a.nc: Au,-us;: 29, 1955, rcsyc:ct:_ve:y. 2iG:.u Clavr.cnts, ti:cica..-ter,
 filed letters pu::sw:nt t;o Rule 18 (d) end (c), to p>rrotc.ct
 extra wor~; at Ashland 4:-.d to bc: czllc6. back for . bulleti_::d
 position there. In 196!:., %Yc!:oi-n o~Grio^d 86 days and Colii.er worked 94. dogs.
 The Or_anl2:atlon concedes that there were positiGns availai)lC at 1.,-'axin,-won
 - - 123 miles distant - - and at Shelby - - 118 mile distant.

 Rule 18 of the effective Agreer;cnt on the pro.-rty, i:-~GVi.des that furlou-hed employees, r,,ay lir:,it 1:L,,_4r avaj7.c:bili.t:v to ho-',~ sta::-ion or terminal. Thereafter, each of the Cla il:lants re spondcd to <:1l calls .._ Ashland. It is the Carrier's contention that the Claimants voluntarily restricted t:hcir availability for all calls for extra work.

 Therefore, the issue posed herein is whather pursuant to Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 national Agree::,~;:::, the Clail._:nts are protected employees. In the iT'ove:lber 24., 1965 Interpretations, the follcwit paragraph is contained on Page 1, thereof:

 "Employes who were on furlough on October 1, 1964 and who were not then available for all. calls because of restrictions they had voluntarily placed on t_cir availability are not to be considered in 'active scrvicc' on that date."

 The Orsanization argues that these Clai:;nnts ir.er in active service inasr:,uch as they avera-,ed more than seven days per month in 1964. A nur;ber of problems are herein presented. Foremost, is the fact that the Interpretations specifically provide that one is not considerod to be in active service if unavailable for all calls because of a voluntary restriction. Ti:e
 t:.1 L' _ Ci .

 lall.^_,US'_i. i.S ill;7'.1`;lJi l:Oll,^-,,~ ,^..v~.ii<`t171i Or ....__. CaJ.lF-"-L '..I::. Ci:i.::Ci::~.:-,.
 A-1'iccm.^_nt t3rfoitted Such rc.'t_icti-On t0 he placad oa C:'-C.':._V.:.::-;:~i~i.C.~','i~i'.O'.:_
 silffci:i_n-,,, a .loss Of ..t'-nlority,
                                          :7U-:: `JUJ.L`.T

            u',hc 0'-f;ari7.Gai:i.U:7 1L:rt...:r tat wa .:.'~;l:u_ ._._

restriction, slut raclv^ :C O'nc v:hich -J.Gwc_d fro-_I t:l:: G=:iCCi:._'li: i. _ ~C _. .:U' _:',
 the cf feCta.vct fibrc~ll'.GTa ...2rely m~a:'tad c... C-iT:~IOJC:'.2 tl":C pT1vilcf > C'
 J:C=S_,.7.Ct1:1L his availability to the hor:~c sta Lion. Jt did not rec_~ui:-e nor obl~ctc the em-ployea to restrict his availability.

 Ou:c attention hac also becn directed to !::·arCs 51 =.: i3H. _t should ba noted that the Labor YCi:'Jcrs fi1Cd c, disso.nt ti1~7:~-.t0. J_T. !:,.~_d .:U. 138, the R~ie-iac llcld a.., follows:

            "Since 11..^. F7cS fl:_'lU;;~IT°d i:_Cal th-c ':o-i.t10:; i.:1 t;.1.Ci? he bald seini-Urity, a.a:~ n~ had plrr.C^.cd rc-_'trictio:- O_^, hi.s


            r

            avaiJ.ability, ihG raquirG:r;:nt:; o; i17 e I^e:p7:u~:ry 7,1905,

            Agreement L:cre not rct by Claimant."


                            1'lc arp impelled to rec0~ni'1.3 this Awaard in x;11 e%ior't to i:.ai111 tai_u consistency. l.e would, hc·aevGr, ;nc.;ca.iG that t,icre appG, ...., to b e soT,_

inconsi.stcney duc t0 ti"le fact that the precE(:1nf,-' v~:ra_ra:,h ci till-- NUvc::i?sr 21'-
                                                      a

1965 Interpretations, on haSe 1, dafinss actiVc SCrvicc fU7; a f L:'L~OUr;llcd employee as one who avera'3es seven days or pore per month in 196!:.

                        ~~T.70^

                        ~~c.vJ


            The answer to questions 1 and 2 is in th,- negative..


                              r


                        ~.Murrc.y PI. Roi.:;.,.^n ~'eutral .G:l.`~er


Dated: lv'ashington, D.C.
      November 17, 1969