PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Stea:.;sl:iy Cle_:a,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station, ',mployecs
 DISPUT: ) and
 Houston Belt and Terminal Railway
 QULSTIOI:S
 AT ISSUE: 1. Is Wesley Brown a protected employe under tfe ;;_o·.islo.-a
 of Article I, Section 1 of the February 7, 1:65 (-rcc.~cnt?
 2. ,Shall the Carrier be required to compensate i·,Iesley 3ro%%;n
 the wage losses he suffered or: and after i Lrch 1, li6i?
 OPINION
 Or BOARD: Since May 22, 1946, Claimant was one of the- re-ularly a2s`-ed
employees on the Mail and Baggage Porter posit-1 In the- ,all
 of 1962, ,. reduction in force caused abolish.-:c.^.t of one of the
 two :Iai1 and Baggage Porter positions. Despite Claimant's
 seniority, he could not displace junior emplcyces due to his inacLity to
 either read or write. However, he was retained on the seniority roster,
 furloughed and available for extra calls. Since then, he has been called for
 extra janitor work and in 1964, performed 133 days o'i co-:penssated service.

 The Organization contends that the Claimant is a protocted employee pursuant to Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 ttat_o;~l Agreement. The pertinent portion of said Section provides that ". . . furloughed employees who respond to extra work when called, and have averacd at least 7 days work for each month furloughed during the year 1964."

 The Carrier defends its position that Ciainant shou r not be considered a protected employee because, "Mr. Brown volunta=-il;· placed restrictions upon his availability for extra work and, therefore, could not be considered as responding to calls for such work." In addition:, it alleges that Claimant ". . . failed to -retain or obtain a position available to ::.:~ in the exercise of his seniority."
Thus, the question presented is whether Clai-ant is o.^.`=itied to protected compensation pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, of the ebruary 7, 1965 Agreement.

 Our attention has also been directed to the .;ove-.~'~er ?!:, 1065 Interpretations of Article I, Section 1. Page 1 thcreof, contaL.s tt:,. following:

            "Employees who were on furlou-,n on October 1, 19G':and were not then available for all calls because of restrictions they had voluntarily placed on tt;eir availability are not to be considered in. 'active service' on that date."

                                          __. uf.. :o. 1J

                                                    r, ~~

                      _ 2 _ Ca;;u .,c,. CL--.


In this posture, our analysis indicates thr.t C1ai:°ant lacks the ability to read or write. Furthermore, tl_e Carrier ~__~·Ce~, that Claimant voluntarily restricted his availability for ail cc-!1S, as well as a failure to obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority.

 What proof do cue find in the subr:.ission to support t::e Carrier's defenses? In this rel-ard, the record is barren of a sci.^.ti-l;. of evidence to buttress the Carrier's assertions. Previously, we s~L--cd the Rule that a party two alleges a defense is o'cligatcc to prove that defense. A mere allegation is not a substitute for proof.

 It is, therefore, our conclusion that under the circu:,:stances prevalent herein, Claimant is a protected employee.

                          Award:


            The answer to Questions (1) and (2) is in the affirative.


                      t.urray L. Rohman

                      hreutral hfember


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