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

 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Is Trackman D. E. Peacock entitled to
 sixty-four (64) days' pay because lie
 was not offered employment in 1968
 equivalent to his 1964 seasonal employ
 ment both as to period and as to compen
 sation?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant, a seasonal protected employee, was laid
 off from his position as Trackman in Joint Straightening
 Gang No. 4 in a force reduction on January 19, 1968.
 He was recalled to service in May. Claimant worked 64 days
 less than his guarantee. However, three other Trackmen, with
 seasonal guarantees considerably less than his but with greater
 seniority, continued to work between January and may in other
 positions. Each worked more than his guarantee, as shown:









Carrier contends that any of the three senior employees "could be considered as displacing D. E. Peacock, a junior seasonal employee, in working out the unexpired guarantee under the provisions set out in the November 24, 1965 Interpretations."
                                    Case No. MW-50-W


Question and Answer 5 on Page 6 of the Interpretations provides:

              Question No. 5: May a senior seasonal employe displace a junior seasonal employe and, if so, under what circumstances?


              Answer to Question No. 5: If a senior seasonal employe worked less in 1964 than a junior seasonal employe in the same seniority district or roster (the same territory if employment relationship governs) such senior seasonal employe will be permitted to displace the junior seasonal employe for the purpose of working out the unexpired guarantee that otherwise would accrue to the junior seasonal employ.


The evidence discloses that Claimant was not displaced by anyone. He was laid off and the position he had held on Joint Straightening Gang No. 4 was not filled by any of the three men. Answer No. 5 does not suggest that its conditions are met when an employee is "considered" to have displaced. It requires an actual displacement.

 The Interpretations anticipate two events which did not occur in this case. One is that there be a displacement. The other is that the senior man, having worked out his guarantee, would proceed to work out the unexpired guarantee of the junior man. This did not occur, since Claimant was laid off at the start of the year, long before the stage when the senior men had worked out their guarantees.

 In drafting the Interpretations the parties nowhere implied that a junior man would lose his guarantee upon layoff because a senior man happened to be working at the time. If that had been so, a junior protected man would never receive his guarantee, so long as senior protected men worked during

                          -2-

                                    AWARD No. a37

                                    Case No. MW-50-69


the year on other jobs while the junior was laid off from his. Carrier's construction which produces this result is erroneous.

                        A W A R D


          The answer to the Question is Yes.


                          6


                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: January 19, 1971
 New York, New York