SPE CIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTPTN°C ":O. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, E;:presc & Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Kansas City Terminal Railway
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier viclate the provisions of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Article II,
 Section 1 and Article IV thereof, when it denied
 Mrs. Stasia Schooler the "protected status" she held;
 and refus;d to compensate her as a protected employee
 for the period subsequent to April 14, 1967?
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate
 Mrs. Schoole. for the wage loss suffered subsequent
 to April 14, 1967 and accord to her the full allow
 ances and benefits prescribed in the February 7, l9C.5
 Agreement by restoring to her the protected status
 she held on that date?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The parties are in agreement as to tb· facts. Prior to
 March 15, 1967, Claimant, a protected employee, was regularly
 assigned to a Messenger position. Effective that date, her
 position was abolished, whereupon she e;.:rcised her seniority
 to a po^trion as Equipment Record Clerk iv'o. 3. Although at the time of her bid,
 the Carrier believed she possessed sufficient fitness and ability to perforce the
 duties of that position, wits .n the thirty day period she was disqualif.led.
 Pursuant to the effective Ag..:c: =nt, she was required to bid on a bulletined
 position and being unable, she w,s_ furloughed.

 The CarrLer removed her protected status on the ground that she failed to retain a position available to her in the exercise of seniority pursuant to Article 7I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. As a matter of f,set, the Carrier states as follows:

The Organization, on the other hand, counters that the Carrier violated not only Article, lI, Section 1, but also Article IV. It argues that after her disqualification, Claimant "was not eligible to displace other employees up. r the Agreer,ient provisioi and hac' only the option to bid in a bulletined position. This placed her in the position of not being able to hold an assignment."


We do not b^lieve the instant dispute is as simple as the Carrier contends. It ori,in._,ted ns a result of a job abolishment and not a voluntary act by Claimant. She then bid on a bulletined position from which she wa!; disqualified. If Claimant had fai:,:d to obtain a position in the exercise of her seniority ril;hts in accordaiicc with existii;; rules, the Carrier, likewise, would have contended that she ceased to be a protected c:;;ployee. At the same time, having exercisd her :.cniority rights in submitting a bid for a bulletined position, the Carrier disqualified her for lacac of ability.

 We find no fault with the right of the Carrier to judge an employee's fitness and abil'.ty. In fact, the Organization does no. herein chal'_enge: the Carrier's right to disqualify. However, in our view, we do not believe it was the Intent of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, to encompa::s the instant result. Ile are firmly of the opinion -.at the purpose of the Feoruary 7, 1965 Agreement was to provide protection fc an employee whose job was; abolished, as occurred in the instant situation.

 We are buttressed in our position by the following stat,.aent contained in Carrier _r~_;:,ters' Dissent to Award No. 44:

            "When the February 7th Agreement was being negotiated, and certain compensation guarantees were provided for protected employees, the carriers made it clear that they were not c:illing to provide such compensation guarLntees in situations where the employees were the moving par'.ics and voluntarily cr.:ted certain conditions over which the carriers had no control. Thus, thay said, that where a carrier abolisi;ed positions, and protected employees were forc d to exercise their seniority, the carriers would main._:iin the co:r:;·; nsation guaranu~ed by Sections 1 and 2 of Article IV to protected employees adversely affected, regardless of the number of displacr;;7ents resultin;; from the bidding and bumping processes initiated by the job abolishments, and regardless of whether or not any of ,such employees were furloughed in the process because no work was available for then."


In the instant dispute, we would note further that Claimant notified the Carrier thr;t "she was ready and available for any work made available to her." Hence, it is our considered opinion that Claimant is entitled to be paid compensation as a protected employ::;,.

                          AWARD


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


                            Murr,-y· M. Rohman utral Member

Dated: Washington, D, C. Ne1/
        January 19, 1970