PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Gulf District)
 QUESTIONS (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the Agreement
 AT ISSUE: of February 7, 1965 and the interpretations thereto, when it
 reduced the protected rate of Mr. R. A. Hornberger, a clerical
 employe at Corpus Christi, Texas?
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to restore Mr. Hornberger's
 protected rate to $27.06 per day (1-1-68 $27.74) plus any
 General Wage Increases, and compensate him for all losses due
 to the changing of his protected rate?
 OPINION The facts are not in dispute. Due to the illness of W. F. Murphy,
 OF BOARD: the Chief Clerk position was bulletined as a temporary vacancy.
 On June 20, 1963, Claimant Hornberger was assigned said position.
 In turn, the latter's position of Revising-Expense Bill Clerk was
 advertised as a temporary vacancy and subsequently assigned. Thereafter, Murphy
 received a disability annuity and Claimant continued to work the Chief Clerk
 position under the temporary vacancy bulletin. On May 1, 1967, Murphy retired
 and the said position of Chief Clerk was bulletined as a permanent vacancy. A
 senior employee to Claimant, bid on and was assigned the permanent vacancy of
 Chief Clerk position.

 In issue herein is the question of Claimant Hornberger's protected rate. Is he entitled to the protected guarantee of the Revising-Expense Bill Clerk position of $22.84 per day, or the Chief Clerk rate of $24.33 per day -- the position he held on October 1, 1964?

 The pertinent portion of Article IV, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement,provides as follows:


Thus, the key to the instant dispute revolves around the allimportant phrase of "regularly assigned position on October 1, 1964." The Carrier argues that Claimant's regularly assigned position on that date was the Revising-Expense Bill Clerk. The organization, on the other hand, refutes such contention by insisting that on October 1, 1964, Claimant was "regularly
                                              Case No. CL-70-W


assigned to the position of Chief Clerk."
 Did the parties contemplate a distinction between a temporary
 and permanent assignment? Does Question and Answer No. 3, under Section 3,
 of Article IV, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations,provide a clue?
 "Question No. 3: Does this section affect the
 guaranteed compensation of an employee holding a
 regular assignment and who bids in a position with a
 higher rate of pay on a temporary basis, being entitled
 to return to the regularly assigned position at the
 conclusion of the temporary work?
 Answer to Question No. 3: No. Such an employee
 continues to be guaranteed the compensation as deter
 mined by Section 1 or Section 2 of this Article."
 Applying the latter question and answer to the facts presented
 in the instant dispute, we find that the Claimant bid on the Chief Clerk position
 which was bulletined as a temporary vacancy -- a position with a higher rate of
 pay on a temporary basis. At the conclusion of the temporary work he was entitled
 to return to the regularly assigned position of Revising-Expense Bill Clerk, or
 any other position in accordance with his seniority -- and continue to be guaranteed
 the compensation of his regularly assigned position of Revising-Expense Bill Clerk.
 In our considered opinion, Claimant is a protected employee and
 his protected rate is predicated on the rate of pay applicable to the position
 of Revising-Expense Bill Clerk. low

                        AWARD


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


              i


                          urrhy ~M. 1Rohman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 April 20, 1970