PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Ra ile; ay, Airline & Steamship Cl~,rlcs,
 TO ) Freidlit Handlers, E:cpress & Station En:nloyes
 DISPUTE ) and
 St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier violate the February 7, 1965
 National Employment Stabilization A-ee
 m:nt when it removed furloughed employee
 A. J. Blacks-ian°s name fro:, the list of
 Protected Employees under that agreecent
 and failed and refused to restore his
 name thereto and pay him his protective
 pay in accordance therewith?
 (2) Shall Carrier now be -required to restore It
 A. J. Blaclcman to the list of Protected
 Employees and compensate him for 143.3 hours
 per month at $342.13 per month for 1965, and
 $355.09 per month for 1966?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant is a protected employee with seniority from
 September 23, 1942. On Nay 3, 1964, his job t:ac abolished
 and he reverted to a furlou.-had status available -=o_' extra
 work. In September, 1965, Carrier compiled data for
 compensating protected employees. It then became aware that Claimant had not
 responded to the first two calls for work following tile adoption of t:;,_
 February 7, 1965 National Agreement. These two alleged calls occurred on
 :arch 12 and 30, 1965. Consequently, the Carrier removed Claimant fro::: his
 protected status.

 At this juncture, we would merely note that Article I, Section 1, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations, provides that employees who were on furlough on February 7, 1965, are entitled to be returned to active service no later than March 1, 1965.

 However, inasmuch as the instant dispute was pro~res_ed on the basis of Article II, Section 1, of tile February 7, 1965 ~,graen:ent, we shall confine our analysis to that section. The pertinent portion, thereof, contains the following statement: "A protected furiou_~i:ad cc:ployce wl"o _siis ;:c respon~ to extra work when called shall. cease to be a protected empicyee." _.. ac:dition, Question and Answer No. 4 under Article 11, Section 1, of c..a ~ovo: be-r V·, 1965 Interpretations, comments upon isolated instances of not res po ::l-in3 ~..., inst_ucts that such should be handled on an equitable basis.

 Ile have carefully analyzed the conlictin-,, st;tc--:.:nts Contained in the submissions relative to the allel,ed failure of 1.71,
                                            r.:...~,. . e. / 7 %-

                                              ...:.e l:e. cl.-nc-.,

                      _ 2 _


respond to the calls. Furthermore, r_he Carrier's investigation rcveclad that Claimant was employed from :lay 1 th-roubh October I5, 1965. lioc;ev;:r, t'.-.e following statement has caused us soice concern.:

              "Carrier was unable to develop m,:erc or -c:: whom he was worlcin; January through .',prig, lc~5; however, he was eligible for uncr.;ployment ben,:Z-iLs during that period and had hc- not boon carni.n;; ,. livelihood in Outside e1rploymcnt he ouvious-y would have made claim for such benefits as ac, had done previously."


In our view, this is purely conjecture! and ::erc:.y an..-!nference based upon an inference. Therefore, it is our determinacio: s..at the Claimant should be restored to protected status.

                        Award:


              The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative.


          L

          Murray 2·S. Rohman

          ~ideutral Yember


Dated: Washington, D. C.
      December 17, 1969