PARTIES ) Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) TC Division, BRAC

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. (a) was Claimant H. S. Eubanks "required
 to move" from Hemet when the previous
 incumbent on the Hemet position, T. O.
 Figgins, returned to work at Hemet?

              2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, is Claimant entitled to the difference between what Carrier has paid him and his guaranteed rate effective sixty days from date claim was filed (May 21, 1969)?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: When the Agent-Telegrapher at Hemet, California,
 T. O. Figgins, was removed from service in April,
 1966, as the result of a formal investigation,
 Claimant, who was Agent-Telegrapher at San Jacinto, success
 fully bid for that position. The Hemet job paid $3.0828,
 wh$le the San Jacinto job then paid $3.0228.

 Mr. Figgins subsequently was reinstated. The record does not disclose why. But Carrier asserts it was in accordance with Article V of the schedule agreement which provides that if charges are not sustained, the employee "will be returned to former position," and anyone consequently displaced "may either (1) return to his former position or (2) take his place on the extra list." Carrier maintains that Claimant's return to San Jacinto "was a requirement and obligation by which he was bound" in accordance with Article V of the schedule agreement.
                                  AWARD No. 3 ;?3

                                  Case No. TC-BRAC-116-W


one question in this case is whether Article IV, Section 3, of the February 7 Agr3ement applies. Was Claimant's return to San Jacinto a volun~ary exercise of senior..ty, or
 was Mr. Flggins' return to Hemet voluntary? In either of
 such cases, Claimant's compensation would not be preserved.
 The reinstatement of hrr. Figgins was not r volun
 tary exercise of san,iority unless, for example, t:=is was
 taken to mean that after a wrcngfull;i discharged employee was
 fornd ;.nnocerat, he "voluntarily" reclaims his position. After
 all, carrier initiated the discharge.
 While he may choose not to return to wobk after
 d'scharga, the reinstatement of a wrongfully discharged
 employee cannot be characterized as voluntary. Carrier
 effectuated the reinstatement, thus displacing Claimant.
 otherwise every action of employees may be construed as
 voluntary in the sense that they choose to work for the
 employer when they could leave their jobs altogether.
 Since Mr. Figgins did not voluntarily exercise
 seniority, Claimant's return to San Jacinto was not "by rea
 son of a voluntary action." Claimant actually could not have
 utilized the right in Article V of the schedule agreement to low
 go on the extra list rather than to return to his former
 position. Had he done so, he would have lost his protected
 status by failing to place himself on a regular position
 available to him.
 Meanwhile, upon Claimant's departure from San
 Jacinto, the position there was jointly re-evaluated. The
 rate was made 13 cents per hour less than it had been.
 Carrier asserts that this joint action in reducing the rate
 was justification for not continuing Claimant's protected
 rate on his return.
 Regardless of the going rate of the San Jacinto
 position, Claimant is entitled to maintenance of his guaran
 teed rate. The downward adjustment does not thereafter
 deprive a former incumbent of his protected rate, whether he
 works at San Jacinto or is required to take any other posi
 tion paying less than his guarantee. Thus, if another employee
 had been bumped into the San Jacinto position, he would still
 have maintained his protected rate, despite the reduced rate
 -2
 4r
 ATIARD NO. 3.2 3
 Case No. TC-BRAC-116-W

 at San Jacinto arrived at :oY mu-"ua7. agz-^e-2:it. Claimant is entitled to no less because he was ti?e .`ormer incumbent at the higher rate.

 A -W A R D
The Answe ;-~o the QuesrLio:.- is Yes.

 Milton Friedman
 Neutral Member

 Dated: OctoberP-~, 1972
        Washington, D. C.