PARTIES ) Transportation-Communications International
 TO THE ) Union
 DISPUTE ) and
QUESTIONS 1. Is employe Mark A. Freel, who was receiving sick
 AT ISSUE: leave benefits under the working rules ofthe
 Agreement on March 21 and 22, 1985, entitled to his
 protected guarantee for such days?
 2. If the answer to question (1) is negative, shall
 the Carrier be required to compensate employe Mark
 A. Freel the difference between his protected daily
 guarantee and the rate of his current regular
 assignment for March 21 and 22, 1985, two days in
 which he was absent account of sickness?
 OPINION
 OF THE BOARD: Claimant, a protected employee, occupied a Corre
 spondence position at Topeka, Kansas. Claimant's
 monthly guarantee amounted to $2,912.95. For March, 1985,
 Claimant's daily protected rate came to $138.71.

Claimant performed service on each workday in March, 1985 except on March 21 and 22. On those two dates, Claimant was off work due to illness. The Carrier tendered Claimant sick pay for the two days pursuant to Schedule Rule 46 but declined to pay Claimant the amount of his daily guarantee. In essence, the Carrier calculated Claimant's monthly protective benefits for March to total $2,635.53 which was $277.42 less than his full guarantee.

The pertinent portion of Article IV, Section 5 of the amended February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement states that: "A "protected employes [sic] shall not be entitled to the benefits of


CASE N0. CL-146-W
 this article during any period in which he fails to work due to
 disability, ... or other absence from the Carrier's service ...." 14109
 Article IV, Section 5 clearly and unambiguously provides that a
 protected worker is not entitled to benefits during "...any
 period..." that he is disabled or voluntarily absent from work.
 A protected employee need not be totally disabled to lose benefits
 for the time he is away from work. SBA 605, Award No. 159. The
 absence can be short or lengthy. Also, the terminology "otherwise
 absent from the Carrier's service" broadly encompasses absences due
 to illness. Claimant was unavailable for work on March 21 and 22,
 1985 due to sickness, and thus he was not entitled to protective
 benefits covering those two days.
 AWARD
 1. The Answer to Question No. 1 is No.
 2. The Answer to Question No. 2 is No. .rf
 v. ~rr-w.
                                      o

                                      Nutr

eutral Member
 Dated: November 7, 1988

 _ 2 _