SPCIAL BOARD OF ADJUe~C'~·2;i_iT :N(O. 6055
PA=li,S ) The Atchison, Topeka < nd Santa. Fe Railway Comp <.ny
 TO THEj and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 QUESTION , Claim by tae Brotherhood in behalf of
 AT ISSUE: S. O. Rouse, a protected employa, for
 payment of the diffe'rerce batwean his
 · protected rate Of normal c-Cp ansation,
 the rate of pay of Signal Foreman, and
 his monthly eu_rnings <=s SigralN:::n, each
 month until he is again assign:d to a -
 position of Signal Foreman, such pay
 ments to be made each month.
 OPINION Claimant was a°protected Signal Foreman w'st=t
 CF BOARD: seniority in the Albl;querque Division in 1565,
 when his gang was transferred to the Los An,;sles
 Division. in accordance with the rules, Cla_Mant COnti^u_:6to
 hold seniority in Albuquerque. On November 30, 19611, C'Urier
 abolished Claimant's gang. A Foreman's position was notz avZil
 able to him in Albuquerque and, r==ether than return to his sen
 iority district as a Signalman, he requested and received per
 mission to remain in Los Angeles as a Signalman. LTnfer the
 rules he carried no seniority with him when he transferred.

 Thereafter Carrier did not compensate him as a Foreman on the ground that he had lost his protected status under Article II, Section 1. The Employes contend that-loss - of his Albuquerque seniority did not thereby deprive him o= his status as a protected employee.

 Article II, Section 1, provides, in part, as follows:

                                            g -~_;e


                  available to him in the e=:ercie of his seniority richt,,, in acco°dance with existing rules o-_ a~re~- men..s. ..


Claimant fits ==uarely .,7ith-in the 1;:lits o- ::=is provision. A position was available to him in t=.._'-bl:rtl'.::~c,^3:= :n the exercise of his seniority r4.ghts. 2:n,_,-'U-cad h:.' volun-'_c_::_ilY Chose. to forfeit his est-ablisheda sonioritv v'nd ta..::G a post'.:"on in which he had none until the dace he began working there.

 There may be many CirCLmls.ances wh=c ii: is personally desirable for an employee not to ob-4ain a posJ.tion <~vai1able to him in the exercise of seniority. But he ca-3t avoid the application of Article 21, Section 1. it is not to los; o= his seniority pe-cc se -anich causes his protected s'=v'~us to cease. As the Employes zrgue, the one- is not dependent on '-,.he other under the 1965 Agreement, which speaks of e-aplovmcnt relationship. But it was Claimant's failure to exercise seniority to obtain a position which produced that result.

                        A Iq A E D


              Claim denied.


                          Milton Friedman IRIeutral member


Washington, D . C. December S , 1969