PARTIES ) Canadian Pacific Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) TC Division - BRAC
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: The following questions are framed by
 the Disputes Committee, based upon the Joint
 Statement submitted by the parties:
 1. Are R. Beauregard and/or J.
 Lapointe protected employees under the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 2. If so, is R. Beauregard entitled
 to moving expenses and preservation of com
 pensation, as claimed, and is J. Lapointe
 entitled to preservation of compensation,
 as claimed?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimants hold seniority in a district which extends
 from Canada into the United States. The employees
 in this district may exercise their seniority to positions on
 both sides of the border.

 Neither claimant was working in the United States on October 1, 1964. Mr. Beauregard had been appointed to a position in the United States on September 29, 1964, but did not occupy it until December 23, due to delays in obtaining a visa. Mr. Lapointe also was appointed to a position in the United States in February, 1964. He did not man it then, because he was working as a regular Relief Agent at the time. He did work in the United States in 1964, during the months of January, February and December.

 In November, 1965, both Claimants were working in Newport, Vermont. As the result of a change made by Carrier,


they lost their positions and exercised seniority to displace operators in Canada. Claimant Beauregard seeks moving expenses and both seek preservation of compensation under the February 7 Agreement.

 Disposition of these issues requires determining whether Claimants are protected employees. The basic questions are whether and to what extent Carrier's employees are covered by the February 7 Agreement, of which Carrier is a signatory. Obviously those who, for example, were in active service in the United States on October 1, 1964, and otherwise qualified under Article I based on service within this colmtry, became protected employees. But is every employee in this overlapping seniority district automatically covered by the Agreement?

 Separate rules agreements are applicable to the work performed in each country. There is no indication that these parties expected employees, who had never worked in the United States, to be covered by the February 7 Agreement, any more than they are covered by provisions in the United States schedule agreelm>at. If that is so, -those only hriefly assigned to the United States prior to October, 11)64, should not come under the February 7 Agreement by virtue of Canadian employment.

 Thus protected status is dependent upon periods of employment in the United States portion of the seniority distract, which is subject to the schedule agreement. To acquire protection, an employee must have been in active service in this country on October 1, 1964, or have been restored to active service by February 7, 1965, must have had two years of employment relationship here as of October 1, 1964, and must have had fifteen days of compensated service here in 1964.

 To hold otherwise would grant the benefits of the Agreement to every employee in the seniority district, including those who may never have worked in the United States and who may never have been covered by the schedule agreement which is applicable on this side of the border. Special considerations may arise in applying the February 7 Agreement to employees
                                AWARD No.306

                                Case No. TC-DRAC-46-E


moving back and forth across the border. But these are not germane where basic qualifying conditions under the February 7 Agreement have not been met.

 Aside from other qualifying conditions, neither Claimant had the required employment relationship in the United States. Their total work in this country prior to October, 1964, was only a few months, although they have been employed by Carrier for many years. Thus they are not protected employees.

 The Agreement's application in situations like this apparently has not been an issue before. Consequently the Award in this case is deemed limited to this Carrier, solely on its particular facts. It is not designed to have general applicability to Canadian Carriers who may have used some different, mutually acceptable method of applying the Agreement. Neither does it prohibit these parties from negotiating an Agreement on this issue which will dispose of it oi. a different basis.

                        AWARD


              The Answer to Question No. 1 is No.


                            i.

                            ~,.(~'~ l1


                          Milton Friedman Neutral Member


Dated: July ,2C, 1972
        Washington, D. C.


-3-