PARTIES ) Delaware and Hudson Railway Company

          TO T1P) and

          DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes


          QUESTIONS

          AT ISSUE: (1) Did the carrier violate the provi

          sions of Article TV of the agreement

          when, for the period cxtenKag from

          November 1, 1968 throU(.;h Nove:aber 1969,

          it faileO and refused to compensate fur

          loughed Cross=_'1g Watc,_.Tiian John !.nc;1"ejko

          at the normal 1"ate of compensation attached

          to tile position te! whiCA he was regularly

. assigned on October 1, 1964?

                      (2) Shall the Carrier now be required to pro-

          perly compensate John Andrejko in accord

          ance with the provisions of Article Ill,

          Section 1 for each wor3r day for which he

          did not receive any compensation from

          this Carrier within the pariod extending

          from November 1, 1968 through November 30,

          1969?

          OPI 0I0T

          Or BOARD: In Award No. 169 it was held that this Claimant

          had not lost his protected status by virtue of events

          on March 16, 1967, and his claim was sustained. Carrier

          apparently paid the employee up through October, 1963, 2_·d the

          instant claim concerns compensation due thereafter. In effect,

          Carrier now urges that this claim should be denied because, on

          evidence not previously submitted, the earlier claim should have

          been denied.

                                    A*IIf-LTD NO. ·IV/

                                    Case No. Irl-13-L


              There is no cont_::;ctual basis for reconsidering

the findin.c that Cla.i_mant did not. lose his protected status in
 march, 1967. SW. to that tim·~, nothing occurred to cause
 a forfeitu::a of protection, for he has accepted all offers of
 temporary ass igiraen-s. That a fresh look at the earlier care
 noca mint lead to a different result does not justify reconsider
 ation. Litigation othes;aise would he endless.

 Since Claimant continued to be a protected employee in 19C,'l and throug'; Octof~^r., 1965, and did not'ii::a thereafter to cause him to lose th;I-t status, the claim necessarily must lx: sustained.

                        A 11 P. '? D


              The an^.ac_: to the Ques`.ions is Yes.


                          P4ilton rric~dman

                          Neutral Tle:,~l~er


May 44 , 1971 Washington, D. C.

                          -2-