PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Enpioyes.
 DISPUTE ) and
 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: "(1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the
 Agreement of February 7, 1965 anal the inter
 pretations thereto, particularly Article 11,
 Section 1, when it removed the protected status
 from It:. T. V. Dusch, a Group 3 (Laborer)
 employee at DuBois, Pennsylvania?
 "(2) Shall the Carrier be required to reinstate the
 protected status to Mr. Busch and pay all cc::,
 pensation due, beginning May 22, 1965, and
 continuing until the Carrier complies with t'.-:e
 provisions of the Agreement of February 7, 1965?"
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The Claimant is a protected employee anal holds era.y a
 Group 3 seniority. Or. February 10, 1965, his position
 was abolished and he reverted to a furlou,ed status,
 available for extra work at Du Bois. Thereafter, four
 new Group 1 yard clerk positions were established at Butler. These,
 as well as an existing yard clerk vacant position were advertised and
 only one bid received.

 As a result of discussions with the Organization, the Carrier agreed to readvertise the vacancies. In. addition, the Clai.:~ant was personally contacted by both the Carrier and the Organization. J)on failure of the Claimant to bid on the readvertised positions, his p-roteczcd status was terminated.

 The Organization contends herein that the Carricr violated Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National A-·rec,:en°,:, as well as Rule 31 of the Schedule Agreement. Insofar as :ule 31V_s ccncer_ed, th°_ Carrier argues that it is applicable only to "qualified -nass-i,-,-ncd c--m_oyces having Group 1 seniority who stood to be recalled under Rule ...

 UnderlyinQ the instant dispute is the question. ~:::o~',.er iz was necessary for the Carrier to enter into an Implementin;- ^.~;--,_...,.-,~. States: in the alternative, could the Claimant, holdinn, seniority ·-n Grcu> >, ~e required to bid for a vacancy on a Group 1 seniority ros~cr, u-_tho:t ..n Implcmcnting Agreement? Obviously, the latter question requires a ., ,at_ve answer.

 The next query posed i s wltctlter the Carrier , ncere<i Lnto an Implementing AF;reement. Previously, we indicltod that upon L:-lure to receive bids on the initial bulletin, cliscu:;sions .ere held Wit:l !a :e


Organization wherein it was agreed that the Carrier .;ould rcadvcrtis;: tl:c
 vacancies, as well as pcrso;-illy contact Clai:rant. 'Necessarily, ~)c are
 required to determine not only whether tl,e Carrier entered into -., _..-.~'_c
 menting Agreement but also the nature of the agreei-.e::^~. In this rc;-arc',
 tl:e November 24, 1965 Interpretations, sheds some light with respect t':ereto.
 on Page 10 thereof, the following statement is pertinent herein:

            "The language above quoted is intanded to r.can that seniority districts or rosters existin-1 on the effective date of the February 7, 1965 _ ;ree:nent are not to be changed insofar as the application of t:Lc aforesaid agreer:ent is concerned, exccnt as t::e result of an impleruenting agreement or other r~rec,.=rt mutually acceotabie to the interested -)nrt=.e,s.' (Underline added).


In our view, the parties on ::ay 21, 1965, arrived at a mutually acceptable agreement which was ;.hereafter implemented by tl:c Carrier through a special bulletin readvertising the positions at Butler.

 It is, therefore, our considered judo-.ent that the Carrier did not violate the provisions of the February 7, 1965 National Agree-ent.

                        Award:


            The answer to questions (1) and (2) is in the negative.


                              7 r/


                        Mf6rray M. Rohman

                        Neutral Member


Dated: L)ashington, D. C.
      December 17, 1969