PARTIES ) Wichita Union Terminal Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
 QUESTIONS
 AT- ISSU_E_:_ 1. Does G. P. Gragg, who had more than
 -- two years of ernp~oyeri£--relationship
 - with the Carrier as of October 1, 1964,
 - - qualify as a protected employee under





OPINION
 OF BOARD: From December, 1944, to October, 1963, Claimant per
 formed work under the jurisdiction of the Clerks and had
 a seniority date of December 23, 1944. She also performed
 relief service in positions covered by the Telegraphers' agreement
 beginning in 1958; Carrier's submission states that "when extra
 and/or off-in-force-reduction clerical employees were available
 to relieve her, she was allowed to protect vacancies on the tele
 graph service positions."

 Claimant always returned to her clerical position upon completion of the relief function. This continued until her Clerk's position was abolished in October, 1963. On Octobe'Y 18, 1964, she forfeited her C1erl:'s seniority and Carrier inadvertently, it was said, gave her a Telegrapher seniority


date of November 9, 1963. In 1965 Claimant obtained an assignment as a Telegrapher-Clerk and retained it until the position was abolished in November, 1967.

 The issue to be resolved is whether or not Claimant had two years or more of employment relationship as of October 1, 1964, as a Telegrapher and i.;as therefore a protected employee under the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 The organization contends that Claimant's work as an extra, in which she responded to all calls, manifested an employment relationship, although she did not acquire seniority as a Telegrapher. In accordance with Question No. 5 on Page 3 of the Interpretations, seniority is not synonymous with "employment relationship."

 Carrier argues that since size worked as a Clerk until October, 1963, possessing seniority in that unit until October, 1964, she could not have acquired the necessary two years of employment relationship as a Telegrapher. prior to October 1, 1964. carrier also states that Claimant did not meet the "active service" requirement of Article I, Section 1, because whenever she was used as Telegrapher between 1958 and 1963 she retained rights under the Clerk's agreement and was used as a Telegrapher only if she could be relieved of her clerical assignment.

 On the property the organization's letter of January 16, 1968, to the Carrier stated that Claimant asserted, as follows:

"Active service" _s defincd in Article I, Section 1, "to include all extra empio_ees on a-tra lists pursuant to agreements or practice ;;1:o arc wor::ing or a~e availa,'_)le for calls for
                  - Award No. 22-16

                                      Case No. TCU-97-167


service and are expected to respond when called..." The record indicates that Claimant did, in fact, respond when called and she thus was in active service as a Telegrapher on October 1, 1964.

 No claim is made that the employee had an employment relationship based upon work in two crafts einich, with certain exceptions, cannot be combined in calculating employment relationship, according to Question No. 9 on Page 4 of the interpretations. For it is as an extra employee under the Telegraphers' agreement that Claimant certainly met the requirement for two-years' employment relationship as of October 1, 1964. The fact that she also worked as a Clerk1 and held Clerk's seniority does not mean that she could not have had the necessary employment relationship as a Teleg rapher. After a11, if she had responded to all calls as an extra Telegrapher for two years, she would not be disqualified by virtue of her having also done other work outside the railroad industry during this period. Thus, that she was simultaneously on the Clerk's seniority list did not thereby diminish her rights as a Telegrapher under the February 7 Agreement.

 ' The organization cites Awards 34 and 161 of this Committee in support of its position. Award 34 concerns work performed outside any bargaining unit but appears to rest on other evidence as well. Award 161, however, is directly in point in holding that an employee performing extra work over a period of two years within the craft, despite extra work in a shopcraft organization in the same period, has established the necessary employment relationship. That finding is consistent with the February 7 Agreement and there is no basis for departing from it.

                            Award No. zap

                            Case No. TCU-97-W


              A W A R D


1. The answer to the Question is Yes.

    2. G. P. Gragg is entitled to preservation of compensation under Article IV from November 17, 1967 on.


    3. In accordance with the foregoing, the answer to the Question is Yes.


                Milton Friedman

                Neutral Member


Washington, D. C.
 November /Z, 1970

 i ~_ r,, _ /WJn