PARTIES ) The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Is Mr. T. R. Bradke a protected
 employee under Section 1 of Article
 I and under Section 1 of Article IV?
 (2) Is Mr. T. R. Bradke entitled to now
 be paid the difference between the
 B&B Painter's rate and B&B Helper's
 rate for all service he performed as
 a B&B Helper on and subsequent to
 December 19, 1968?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant was a Steel Bridgeman from 1958 until
 September 4, 1964, when he was transferred at his
 own request to a regular position as B&B Painterr
 Each of these positions is covered by a different agreement
 and seniority is not interchangeable.

 The issue is whether Claimant has two years or more of employment relationship as of October 1, 1964. According to Question No. 5 on Page 3 of the Interpretations, "employment relationship" is not synonymous with seniority and one may have a two-year employment relationship without having two years of seniority.

 The organization relies largely upon Award No. 34, which suggested that non-union work for a railroad could be included in the time constituting the employment relationship in connection with issiie> under Article V of the February 7 Agreement. However., if this reasoning were applied to the definitions in Article I, Section 1, it would permit a regularly assigned employee on October 1, 1964, who had 15 days of compensated service in September, but who had been doing non-unit
 AWARD NO .
 Case No, MW=48-Yd

 work for two years before that, to acquire protection. That does not square with the Agreement and Interpretations.

 While "employment relationship" is not synonymous with seniority, it does anticipate employment in the craft. Question No. 10 on Page 4 of the Interpretations is applicable. It provides that "employment in more than one seniority district in the same craft can be counted" only if "the employee acquired and retained seniority in each seniority district or roster or was transferred to another seniority district or roster at the request of management for temporary service."

 In this case, Claimant did not acquire seniority on each of the two rosters, nor was his transfer at the request of management for temporary service. Indeed, it was a permanent transfer. Consequently, he does not meet the criteria of Article I, Section 1.

 A W A R D
The answer to the

 Dated: January 19, 1971
 New Ybrk, New York
Question is No.

 Milton Friedman Neutral Member