PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and
 Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 QUESTIONS (a) Did Carrier violate the provisions of the February
 AT ISSUE: 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement when it removed the protected
 status from R. J. Sime, Cashier at Chanute, Kansas?
 (b) Shall Carrier be required to reinstate the protected
 status of Mr. Sime and compensate him for the difference
 between his protected rate of Manager-Wire Chief and the
 rate of Cashier Position No. 6088, to which assigned,
 plus subsequent general wage increases, commencing July
 16, 1973, and continuing each work day thereafter?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On November 1, 1972, coincident with the dovetailing of the
 Clerks' and Telegraphers' seniority rosters, Claimant acquired
 dual seniority on the dovetailed roster and on the special ros-
 ter for wire chiefs, manager wire chiefs, assistant wire chiefs and student
 wire chiefs. On October 28, 1972 the parties to the instant dispute signed
 an agreement, identified as the Wire Chief Agreement, which appears as Appen
 dix No. 1 of the current Clerks' Agreement. That Appendix No. 1 provides in
 Section 2(d):

Carrier served notice on May 15, 1973 that certain positions would be abolished effective at the close of work June 15, 1973, including the Manager Wire Chief Position occupied by Claimant. Claimant chose to displace in a Cashier Position, which was the highest rated position that his seniority would permit him to attain which did not require a change in residence. Claimant recognized that he could have displaced on positions within the Wire Chief Class but that such moves would have required a change in residence.
                                      Case No. CL-101-W


                        _ 2 -


In view of his dual seniority and the fact that Claimant did obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights, Petitioner asserts that he was in compliance with Article II, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement and retained his protected status. For that reason, it is urged that his protected rate of Manager Wire Chief should be retained. The Organization argues that Section 2(d) cited above does not require an employee to exhaust his seniority in the Wire Chief Class before he is privileged to displace in another class. Petitioner cites Award 355 which held that a protected employee retains or loses protection solely by operations of specific provisions of the Agreement and no provisions suggest a loss of protection, in that dispute, where a job available in the exercise of seniority is obtained.

 Article II, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement provides that an employee shall cease to be a protected employee for a variety of reasons including "·..failure to retain or obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights in accordance with existing rules or agreements ...." Claimant in this dispute chose to exercise his seniority rights only in his own location and in a non-Wire Chief Class. This active choice on his part had several implications. First, as we said in Award No. 96, employees do not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1 for retention of protected status if they fail to obtain an available position because they have restricted the geographic area in which to exercise their rights, as herein. Second, the "existing rules or agreements" referred to in Section 2 may in this dispute properly refer to Section 2(d) of Appendix No. 1 of the Schedule Agreement. Section 2(d) is permissive in part, as the Organization argues. However., its clear and unequivocal language provides that when an employee, as herein, fails to exhaust his seniority in the Wire Chief Class when affected by force reduction, he forfeits his previously acquired seniority in the Wire Chief Class. Ergo, if he has no seniority in the Wire Chief Class, he certainly has no protected rate in that class. In this instance, there is no inconsistency between the Schedule Agreement and the National Agreement with respect to the issue at bar, and both Agreements mandate that the questions must be answered in the negative.

                        AWARD: ~. ~` ~`-(""L-I i,r


            The answer to both questions is "no". t C T


                                          . J ~~`RT N


                      I. M. Lieberman Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C. _
 October 21, 1976