PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks
 '1'0 )
 DISPUTE ) - and -
 Central Vermont Railway Company

 QUESTIONS AT ISSUE:

                (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February 7, 1965 I:grecnent, particularly Article IV, Section 1, when it refused to compensate Mr. Branch H. Warner his protected rate of pay for period subsequent to January 1, 1975.


                (2) Shall the carrier. be required to restore Mr. Warner to his protected rate and compensate him for the wage loss subsequent to January 1, 1975.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 The material facts involved in the instant claim are not in dispute. On August 1, 1969, the parties entered into an Implementing Agreement that provided for the coordination of functions between the Carrier (i.e. the Central Vermont Railway Company) and the Canadian National Railway. On January l., 1970, Carrier's Accounting Department was transferred to the Canadian National Railway at Montreal, Qucbec. The employees affectec by the coordination were protected under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Implementing Agreement which provided that for a period not excecding five (5) years from the date affected by the transfer of work, they would be entitled to the benefits of Section 6 of the May, 1936 Washington Job Protection Agreement, after which they would revert to their con-.,ensation status as set forth in the February 7, 1965 Job Stal,lAization T.9 reement.

        The Claimant had established his ;--.:!-.ecl.ive status as

provided by the February 7, 1965 Agreement cn a Paymaster position
 which he :-1d on October 1, 19 G4. As a rc,-.;:t o: Carrier's
 coordinat.i.~n with tt:e Canadian National r i:'.. Clai:.iant's work
 was trans:_errecl to :9 ontreal, Quebec and I,Ls L.csition was abclishmd
 en March l", 1.9'.7. Cl,:i-mast exercised hi.~- -cn:-·rity to the highest
 rated position hc: oul,l held, via. 1W__ C_ .. .,i carrier's Trans
 protaticn Dep«rt.~cnt, and he was assigned to this position from
 March 15, 1971 to June 7, 1971. however, he was disqualified
 from the Rate Clerk position due to his inability to aclequatel-y
 Special Board of Adjustment Case No. CL-68-E 7/
 No. 605 - 2 - Award No. 413

 perform the duties thereof. He thus reverted to an extra or utility clerk status. On June 14, 1971, Carrier established a Yard Clerk-Interchange Clerk position, and Claimant. was instructed by the Carrier that in accordance with Article Il, Section 1 of the Fobruary 7, 1965 Agreement, tie was re·:uired to exercise his seniority rights to this position or else lose his protected status. Claimant bid on the Yard ClerkInterchange Clerk position and Carrier continued to comnensate him at his protected rate as provided by the F.ugust 1, 1969 Implementing Agreement until January 1, 1975.

 Commencing January 1, 1975, pursuant to the August 1, 1969 Implementing Agreement, Claimant reverted to his protected rate established under to February 7, 1965 Anreement. The Employees contend that Clair,ant's protected rate was $44.6871 while tire Carrier avers that it was $41.5960. Hence the dispute before this Board.

 It is the Emp loyces' position that when Carrier arbitrarily and unilaterally reduced Claim ant's.protected rate on and after January 1, 1975, they thereby violated Article IV of the February 7, 1965 Jo:) S teb4 li7atior. A<l: ce;-ont.' Carrier retorts, however, that when Claimant bid on t::e lower rated position of Yard Clerk-Interchange Clerk after he was disqualified from the higher rated position of Rate Clerk, he voluntarily bid or. a job carrying a loc:er rate of pay and his protected rate was reduced as a result.

 Carrier's position herein is premised on their contention that Claimant voluntarily bid on a position carr;·ing a lower rate of pay, and thus pursuant to Article IV, Section 3 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, he was not entitled to have his previous protected rate preserved. However, it is the considered opinion of this Board that when Claimant was d'.is qualifiecr from the .Rate Clerk position, his subsequent exercise of seniority onto the lower rated position of Yard Clerk -Interchangr4 Clerk, the only other position available to him, was not a voluntary exercise of his seniority to the latter position as contemplated by the February 7, 1965 Agreement. There is no disputing tire fact that Carrier had the right to disqualify Claimant from the Rate Clerk position. Yet when he subsequently bid on the only position available to him, it was not the intent of the February 7, 1965 Agreement that his protected rate be reduced as a result.

 The only distinction between the instant case and Award No. 194 of this Board is that in the instant dispute Carrier established a to ;:cr rated position which the Claimant was required to bid on following his disqualification whereas in Award No. 194 the protected employee there was placed in a furloughed status following his displacement. This Board subscribes to the reasoning of Award No. 194, and we consider it dispositive of the dispute before us. Accordingly, iae hold that

                                                  r

She c:.,~l Board o_` A"justment Case ho. Cl,--Gs-k;
 L :o. G0S - ; - Twor<. C.o. 419

 when Carrier unilaterally reduced Claimant's protecicc'. rate of. pay effective January 1, 1975, they thereby violated the February 7, 1065 Agreement.

                    AWARD


The answer to Questions (1) and (2) is in the affirmative.

                                a ,

                                -

                    Robert !·I. 0'Brien, Neutral Member-


December 1, 1977