A14ARD NO. 339
 Case No. CL-92-W

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express 6 Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and
 Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE:

 1. Did the Carrier violate the February 7, 1965
 Agreement when it terminated the protected
 status of the following named employes?

 GROUP ONE
Leslie Minnifield
 Melvin :d. Swearingin
 C. Cheathum
 Harry E. Warford

 GROUP TWO

 Loxie C. Scott
 Calvin Holland
 Vito J. Rosati
 P. Henderson
 J. L. Reynaud
 Wm. T. Clark
 Willie Powels
 Julius C. Davis
 W. D. Pierce
 John J. Fruge
 Luther L. Neal
 ')ogle Shaw
 Aleck S. itacLennan
 Tony Soliz
 Albert E. Martini
 James E. Stanley
 Raymond E. Mitchell
 Lee Sterling

 Anderson Rose
 Bennie Glascoe
 Paul Richards
 Herman Gellman
 Joseph Scott
 Johnny Chavez
 George J. Perez

 GROUP THREE
ferman J. Moore
 Jerrie C. Stephenson
 Jose V. Munoz
 Robert Turner
 Robert T. Law
 Lee '!ard
 S. 0. Jackson
 Ozell Williams
 Clifton C. James
 Charley H. Wilson
 Armin 0. Joenson
 Charlie ?Jilson
 Johnnie .Johnson
 Dennis Woods
 Edward R. Jones
 E. Johnson
 Jonny R. Jackson

 J. Conrad
 Levester Page
 Charles Davis
 K. D. Ogden
 T. De Be11is
 John O'Leary
 ;d. S. Garrett


                          GROUP THRE'_ (Cont'd.)


                  Harvey D. Mack Thomas Strode

                  ?dill Anderson Joseph S. King

                  D. Ld. Marshall Virgis Telsa

                  R. D. Aubolee John F. ;:inney

                  ',4. S. Marshall Billie Jean Thompson

                  F. D. Brooks Henry };night, Jr.

                  C. Puns !.'alter Thompson

                  Lucioes Bryant Dorothy Knostman

                  John E. Horgan Louis N. Warden

                  Edward Misiah Anderson Leon H. Grubbs

                  Wesley Mosely Charles Williams

                  ?d. James Rodolfo C. Gonzalez

                  idesley 7lart Frederick B. Williams

                  Joseph A. Smith Sam L. Green

                  David Trey 'tarry Zeidman


                  2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, shall Carrier be required to restore the names of the above listed employes to the protected list of employes and to compensate them for any loss of compensation and/or benefits due under the provisions of the February 7, 1965 ,Agreement?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: The Carrier herein is a Union Passenger Terminal jointly
 owned by three Railroads. It had endured a significant and substantial decline
 in the volume of business over a period of years. One of the factors contri
 buting to the decrease in its volume of business resulted from a change in mail
 handling procedures instituted by the U.S. Post Office. The rearrangement
 diverted a large quantity of mail formerly handled by Terminal employees direct
 ly to Post Office employees. Consequently, the Carrier was compelled to adjust
 its forces to meet the changed economic environment.
 The Organization filed Claims in the instant dispute on
 behalf of three groups--all of whom were extra baggage and mail handlers.
 Group One Claimants voluntarily relinquished their regularly assigned positions
 and elected to place themselves on the extra or unassigned list in accordance
 with Rule 33(b) of the Schedule Agreement, for personal reasons. -roup Two is
 composed of Claimants who were working from the unassigned list. They lost
 their protection for failure to bid on bulletined positions for which they were
 qualified and available to them in the exercise of their seniority rights, pur
 suant to the effective Agreement. Group Three consists of Claimants who were
 displaced from regular positions but, nevertheless, failed to exercise their
 seniority rights to displace junior employees occupying regular positons for
 which they were qualified. v4/
                          - 3-


                                      ANAZD d0. 339

                                      Case No. CL-92-:.1


The Carrier in denying the instant Claims relies upon two defenses. The first involves a question of time limits and the second is predicated upon Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement; as well as Question and Answer No. 3, of Section 1, Article II, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations. Based upon a careful analysis of the submissions of the Parties, it is our considered view that the instant dispute warrants a determination on the merits. Therefore, we shall refrain from commenting on the Carrier's time limit rule defense and proceed to discuss the merits issue.

 The pertinent Portion of Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, is hereinafter quoted:

                An employee shall cease to he a protected employee in case of his resignation, death, retirement, dismissal for cause in accordance with existin^ agreements, or failure to retain or obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights in accordance with existing rules or agreements, or failure to accept employment as provided in this Article. A protected furloughed employee who fails to respond to extra work when called shall cease to be a protected employee.


An adjunct thereto, is Question and Answer No. 3, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations, to wit:

                Question No. 3: What are the obligations of extra employees with respect to obtaining or retaining a position in order to remain a "protected employee?"


                Answer to Question No. 3: If an extra employee fails to obtain a position other than a temporary position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights in accordance with the existing rules or agreements, he will lose his protected status. It should be understood, however, that this does not prohibit the making of local agreements which will permit an employee to remain an extra employee if there is a mutual understanding that this action may be justified.


As previously indicated, Rule 33 (b) of the Schedule Agreement, Permits regularly assigned employees to revert to the unassigned list. The Group One Claimants signified their desire to do so, however, they were advised at that time that the Carrier would not waive forfeiture of their pro-
                        _G _


                                        AWARD :?O. 339

                                        Case No. CL-92-W


tected status by entering into a local Agreement. Consequently, these individuals lost their protected status. Further, Group Two Claimants failed to bid on regular positions available to them in the exercise of their seniority; and Group Three Claimants failed to displace on regular positions which they could have obtained by exercising their seniority.

      Thus, in this posture, insofar as the Group One Claimants are concerned, the Carrier does not question the right of these Claimants to work from the extra list, as provided by the Schedule Agreement. However, the thrust of the Organization's Argument is predicated upon the concept of retaining protection. In this regard, the Interpretations do permit the parties to waive the loss of protected status by providing for the execution of a local agreement--by mutual consent--but such local Agreement was never consummated.


      Moreover, it is our considered judgment, that the facts as portrayed herein conclusively reveal that each of the Claimants in Groups Two and Three failed to retain or obtain a position available to him in the exercise of seniority rights as provided by Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Accordingly, each of the Claimants forfeited his protected status. In support of this principle, we need cite only several of our own previous awards. In this connection see Award Nos. 39, 103 and 157. Hence, we are compelled to deny the instant Claims.


                              Award:


                    The answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the negative.


                                        V v V

                                        Murra ?·I. Rohman

                                        Ne

                                            0


                                          u ral Member

                                          1


      Dated: November 14, 1972

` Washington, D. C.