Award No. 195
 Case No. CL-67-W

 - SPECIAL D0.10) pi' ED't)STHONT NO. 605
 PARTIES ) Broth ':ood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
 DISPuTTc ) and
 Kant;as City Terminal Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carri^r violate the provisions of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement, particularly Article I, Section 1, when it
 refused to reconize Claimant H. L. Baker as a protected em
 ployee?
 (2) If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, did the
 Carrier violate the provisions of Article IV, Section 1,
 when it failed to compc~"isate Claimant in accordance there
 with?
 (3) Shall the Carrier now be required to restore the protected
 status to Cl~.imant and compensrte him for the difference between
 his prote.ted rate of General Foreman and that of position(s)
 held subs., uent to Junes 1, 1967, as provided in Article IV,
 Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Effective June 1, 1967,. Claimant was disqualified and relieved
 from his positic as General Foreman, an excepted position.
 Pursuant to Rule 13, h,: exercised his seniority to the: position
 of Assir'snr; Foreman in the Mail and Baggage Department. It is
 the organization's conten,ion that pursuant to Article IV, Section 1, of the
 February 7, 1965 National Agreeri::nt, Claimant is enti ed to be compensated the
 difference in pay between the rate of the General For~:."an's position and Assistant
 Foreman. Thus, the issue presented is whether or not the po:.ition of General Fore
 man was subject to tile protective provisions of the Fehruary 7, 1965 Agreement.
 The Carrier concedes that token Claimant exercised his seniority rights under Rule
 13, "he then became subject to the protection of the February 7, 1965 Agreement
 at the rate of the position to which he exercised his seniority." Therefore, "his
 protected rate became the rate of the Assistant Forer:,n position he displaced on."

 In view of our an ly.·.is in Award No. 36, we are in accord with the Carrier's contenti,n as to the effect of Article IV, Section 1, as well as the Letter of Understanding executed on February 7, 1965.





Burr- M. Rohman Neu ral Member Dated: Washington, D. C. January 19, 1970