NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20076/AREA CODE: 202-659-9220
CHARLES 1. HOPKINS, Jr. Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


Mr. Robert M. O'Brien
 27 School Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

 Mr. Irwin M. Lieberman
 91 Westover Avenue
 Stamford, Connecticut 06902

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 Suite 505
 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 There is attached copy of Award No. 411, dated June 16, 1977, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

                        t


cc: Chairman - Employes' National
 Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs:
 Fred J. Kroll
 C. J. Chamberlain
 H. C. Crotty
 R. W. Smith
 E. J. Neal
 S. G. Bishop
 M. B. Frye
 W W. Altus, Jr.
 J. Berta
 R. K. Quinn, Jr.
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
          SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


                                CASE CL-111-W

                                Award No. 411


PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS
 TO )
 DISPUTE ) - and -

                KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY


QUESTION AT ISSUE':

    "(1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Article II, Section 1 and Article IV thereof when it denied C. N. Brown, Claimant, the protected employe pursuant to Article IV, Section 1, for the period subsequent to July 7, 1975?


    (2) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate Claimant C.

    N. Brown for each day subsequent to July 7, 1975, that

    he was denied the full benefit and allowance prescribed

    in the February 7, 1965 Agreement by restoring to him

    the protected status that he held on that date?"


OPINION OF BOARD:

 The essential facts giving rise to the instant claim are uncontroverted. Claimant held a regular assignment as a Messenger in the Carr4er's Mechanical Department on October 1, 1964 thereby establishing his protective status as provided by the February 7,1965 Job Stabilization Agreement. On October 5, 1967 he transferred to the Mail and Baggage Department as a Mail Handler where he remained until June 10, 1975 when he was affected by a force reduction. Claimant then displaced on a position in the Purchasing and Stores Department on June 12, 1975 but was displaced on June 16, 1975. He subsequentl,'v displaced on a Mill Street Yard Clerk position but was disqualified consistent with the requirements of the Clerks Schedule Rule 12. Claimant thereafter entered bids on six bulletined positions open to him but was denied any of the positions account he was not qualified. fie was thus placed in a furloughed status though he made himself available for any work that was available to him in his craft. On August 21, 1975 Claimant accepted a full time position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement where he has been continuously employed.
 Special Board of Adjustinent
 No. 605 - 2 - Case No. CL-111-R'
 Award No. 511

 The position of the Eirq:loyees in t',e instant dispute is twofold. First they contend that Carrier failed to compensate Clairiant as a protected employee as required by Article II', Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement subsequent to July 7, 1975, the date on which he was placed in a furloughed status. They argue that Claimant's inability to hold a position available to him was not of his own doing. Rather, it was caused by the actions of the Carrier. The Employees further aver that merely because Claimant accepted a position in another craft effective Agusut 21, 1975, this nonetheless did not relieve the Carrier of their obligation to accord him the protective benefits provided by the February 7, 1965 Agreement. They insist that Claimant did not voluntarily accept the laborer's position, and thus did not relinquish his status as a protected employee.

 Carrier retort;: that Claimant was not entitled to the protective benefits of the February 7, 1965 Job stabilization Agreement since he failed to retain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights as required by Article II, Section 1 of that Agreement. The Carrier further maintains that when Claimant accepted a position tinder the Fireman and Oiler Agreement on August 21, 1975 lie was thereafter not subject to the Clerks' working .Agreement, and was therefore not entitled to the benefits of the February 7, 1965 Agreerient.

 For the period July 7, 1975 when Claimant was furloughed, to August 21, 1975 when he accepted a position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement, it is the opinion of this Board that Claimant was a protected employee as contemplated by the February 7, 1965 Agreement, and as such, he should have been compensated pursuant to Article IV, Section 1 of that Agreement. Award 194 of this board clearly supports the Employee's position that Claimant was indeed a protected employee during this period.

 However, we agree with the Carrier that when Claimant accepted a position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement effective August 21, 1975 lie was thereafter not entitled to the benefits of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Article IV, Section 5 of that Agreement provides, in clear and unambiguous language, that "A protected employee shall not be entitled to the benefits of this Article... during any period in which lie occupies a position not subject to the working Agreement." Thus when Claimant accepted a position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement lie ceased to occupy a position subject to the Clerks' working Agreement. The Employees argue that Article IV, Section S is inapplicable to the dispute at hand since Clar,,:ant was forced to take a position in another craft, and did riot do so of his own volition. Article IV, Section 5, however, does not contain such an exception, and in any event, we find that when Claimant accepted a position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement lie did so voluntarily.

                                                      \I

Special Board of Adjustment
 No. 605 - 3 - Case No. CL-111-W
 Award No. 411
This Board further holds that the Awards of this Board relied on by the Employees, viz. Award Nos.'53, 183 and 234, are inapposite to the dispute before us. In those Awards the Carriers recognized that the Claimants were entitled to protective benefits, but they then sought an offset against the guarantee for compensation earned by them elsewhere. Yet in the instant case, Carrier has denied that Claimant was entitled to protective benefits while he was not working under the Clerks Agreement. More in point, we hold, is Award No. 362 of this Board, and we subscribe to the reasoning therein.

 It should be noted, parenthetically, that when Claimant accepted a position under the Fireman and Oiler Agreement his protective status was not permanently terminated. Rather it is merely suspended for the period of time in which he works under that Agreement.

                    AWARD


    The Questions at Issue are disposed of as per Opinion.


                  Ruft

                  Neutral blemoer


Dated: Wasnington, D. C.
 June 16, 1977