PS2TT'S ) Jacksonville Terminal Company
 TO _ ,.~ ) and

QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. (a) Did Carrier violate the provisions of
 Article IV, Section 1, and Article II,
 Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agree
 ment when it refused to compensate D. M.
 Loop at the rate of the regularly assigned
 position he occupied on October 1, 1964,
 plus subsequent general wage increases,
 after he was reinstated to the service of
 the Carrier?



                  (b) Shall Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. Saunders at the rate of his regularly assigned position on October 1, 1964, plus subsequent general wage increases?


OPINION OF BOARD:

 D. M. Loop
On October 1, 1964, Claimant Loop was a Train Director. He was dismissed from service on August 9, 1965, and restored to
                                    A'.!!!a:cD NO. yZ-5

                                    Case No. TC-BRAC-17-SE


._rvien almost ? 1,'°r:? months later, with the understanding that the 4.ritexvening perji(_ ~ :;as <a suspension. It was also agreed that thereater his ,on.ority rights "will be restricted to Beaver S <:=a>e t Tower. exc~ . ,. .n event the Ca:;pany' s operation at Beaver S!:reet Tower is c'~.:-contirue-'...he ·:-ill be permitted to exercise iris seniority on ra comparable position in the Company's remaining tG·ic.'.T_ operations. s '.ii oth:_:r rights are unlmpa1.reU. "

 ;:When Claimant Loop was reinstated, the only positions at Eh aver Streetc·::ur ~:sre L.^.~·'r men's. The Organization claims that nevertheless Carrier violated the February 7, 1965, Agreement by failing to preserve Claimant's compensation as a Train Director. In support of its position, the Organization points to the understanding that aside from restrictions on his exercise of seniority all rights of Claimants were to be "unimpaired."

 Carr ier·contends that it would be ludicrous to agree to reinstate a discharged employee, restrict his service to lowerrated positions .and nevertheless be obliged to guarantee his compensation at a higher position which he no longer is permitted to occupy. Further, Carrier points to the final sentence of the memorandum which led to Claimant's reinstatement. It provides that "this agreement supersedes all agreement rules in conflict therewith." This, Carrier suggests, would override any conflict with the February 7 Agreement if there were one. Carrier also argues in its submission that Claimant is under a continuous period of discipline which still prevails, so long as he is not permitted to occupy the position of Train Director.

 The Train Director's position was relinquished by Claimant as part of the understanding restoring him to work. Certainly the intent of that understanding was not that he would be compelled to occupy lower-rated position and receive a guarantee of compensation at a higher rate. This would constitute a reward rather than the punishment which was manifestly intended both by his period of suspension without pay as well as by the restriction on the exercise of his future seniority,

 Significantly, in agreeing to the settlement which restored him to service, he and the organization agreed to permanence in a lower.-rated position. The parties then waived "a11 agreement rules" in conflict with their settlement. This apparently was

                          -

                                    i:;FARD NO. :~-5 ~

                                    Case No. TC-DRAC-17-S


not done in Award No. 108, : ._ _.._,~ by tine Organization. In that
 case the reduction in posi*L:_-- ·;rE:s temporary. In this one
 Claimant was permanently r:..:~-:-~. :as Train Director and could
 only exercise his senior ii_Y :::_-: position comparable to Leverman.

 The Organization and :~:.._....;:nt ..red not have acquiesces, in the settlement, but:. coulc; '~:- - ~n;,aht an adjudication i;,hich
 either would have sustain,~_-! Cr)-nry's action or would have
 restored him to his full :. a :::. .,t=ad, a mutually agreeaale
 compromise was found to be more desirable. Claimant must take
 the bad with the: aocd. fie cannot be rewarded as he seeks, since
 the parties agreed otherwise, as they had a right to do.

 Not only the evident intent of the settlement but Question No. 1 on Page 14 of the Interpretations of November 24, 1965, demonstrates that Claimant's guaranteed compensation should not be that of Train Director. The Question is:

          If a"'protected employee" for one reason or another considers another job more desirable than the one he is holding, and he therefore bids in that job even though it may carry a lower rate of pay than the job he is holding, what is the rate of his guaranteed compensation thereafter?


The answer is given as "the rate of the job he voluntarily bids into." For his own reasons Claimant Loop considered a move into the Leverman's job more desirable than efforts to retain the Train Director's job by successful litigation. He chose the voluntary downgrading, which could not have been imposed unilaterally by Carrier, and he cannot be held entitled, therefore, to retention of a guarantee at the Train Director's rate.

 While Claimant Loop's protected status and other rights remained unimpaired as a result of the settlement, he obtained no greater rights than are generally available to employees covered by the February 7 Agreement. What was in effect a voluntary bid into a lower-rated job does not permit retention of the guaranteed compensation of a higher-rated position.

                          -3-

                                              V .

                                    arrARD NO. _.~-> >

                                    Case No. TC-BRAC-17-SE


        ;ui:i:~r~


Claimant Saunders, an Assistant Train Director, voluntarily
 b !.c' :n .tc:-nporarv position as Leverman on December 3, 1966. The
 o^~;i"- i_on was abolish=,n!d on ?~_^cember 23, 1966. According to Carrier,
 C~.~e:;;ana Saundera thcreatt::r was entitled to guaranteed cempensa
 y.
 ._ r::: o;a." ".., a Lirve:-.~_n ar:n iot as an Assis~amLTrain Pire~tor .

 Ti:e or<raniza;zon con,::;nds that an employee's guaranteed cemnen-ation 9.s uni.Ffectea ':·· his bidding into a temporary nosition, and cited Quesyion 1;u. 3 on Page 14 of the Interpretations in support. That Question is:

          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? (Underlining added.)


The Question is answered in the negative. However, the Organization extrapolates the specific reference to a higher- rated job to lcwer-rated, temporary positions as well. Question No. 1 on Page 14 emph:.sizes that voluntarily bidding into a lower-rated job reduces guaranteed compensation accordingly. It makes no reference to whether the job is temporary or permanent.

 There is no logical ,justification for the Organization's effort to interpret Question No. 3 as equally applicable to higherrated and locier-rated temporary positions. That Question deals solely and specifically with employees who bid into positions with a higher rate of pay. Consequently, it is inapplicable to the issue involving Claimant Saunders.

 Moreover, Article IV, Section 3, of the February 7 Agreement makes no distinction iyatween temporary and permanent positions. It simply states that a protected employee who exercises

                          -4-

                                    AWARD NO.~

                                    Case No. TC-BTZAC-17-SE


lii- :~:iiority voluntarily "will not be entitled to have his com
 l-;·n,~:-::~ion preserved as provided in Sections 1 and 2."

                        A W A R D


              Tne answer to the Questions is No.


                          Mi t n Friedmah

                          Neutral Member


Dated: July ~j , 1971
        Washington, D. C.


-5-