PARTIES ) Transportation-Communications International
 TO THE ) Union
 DISPUTE ) and
 The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 QUESTIONS 1. Did Carrier violate the provisions of the February
 AT ISSUE: 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement, as amended, when it
 refused to compensate D. L. Hladky a daily make-up
 allowance based upon the position he held on March
 3, 1985 when he obtained five (5) years of service
 (Freight Bill Clerk Position No. 6985 - $94.77 per
 day), plus subsequent general wage increase, after
 being displaced prior to April 1, 1985 and
 titleholder of Assorter Position No. 6940 - $89.71
 per day on April 1, 1985?
 2. Shall Carrier be required to compensate D. L.
 Hladky a daily make-up allowance of $5.06 for each
 workday commencing April 1, 1985, continuing until
 such time Claimant is titleholder of a higher rated
 position?
 3. Shall Carrier now be required to pay an appropriate
 per annum interest rate on the amounts wrongfully
 withheld beginning thirty (30) days after date of
 claim?
 OPINION
 of THE BOARD: Claimant acquired a March 3, 1980 seniority date in
 the Revenue and Customer Accounting Seniority
 District. Thereafter, Claimant performed five years of continuous
 service for the Carrier. On his fifth anniversary (March 3, 1985),
 Claimant was a regularly assigned Freight Bill Clerk. The daily
 rate of pay for the Freight Bill Clerk position was $94.77. Prior
 to April 1, 1985, Claimant was displaced from the Freight Bill
 Clerk job and he exercised his seniority to Assorter Position No.
 6940, which was the highest rated position available to him, paying


$89.71 per day. Claimant was regularly assigned to the Assorter
 job on April 1, 1985. moo
 Claimant initiated claims for protective benefits under
 the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement, as amended, for the
 difference in pay between the Freight Bill Clerk position ($94.77)
 and the Assorter position ($89.71) for the months of April and May,
 1985. Contending that Claimant's daily protective rate was $89.71,
 the Carrier denied the claims.
 The parties concur that Claimant attained protected
 status under the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement, as amended,
 but they disagree over exactly when Claimant became a protected
 employee. The organization submits that Claimant became a
 protected employee on March 3, 1985 while the Carrier asserts that
 Claimant did not attain status as a protected employee until April
 ~r/
 1, 1985.
 Article I, Section 1(e) of the amended February 7, 1985
 Job Stabilization Agreement reads:
 "Employes hired on or after January 1,
 1980, who acquire five (5) years continuous
 employment relationship in the clerical
 craft will become protected employes on the
 first of the month immediately following
 the month in which they acquire five (5)
 years continuous employment relationship in
 the clerical craft, unless they are not
 regularly assigned on the date they are
 eligible to become protected employes, in
 which event they will become protected
 employes on the first of the month
 immediately following the month when
 recalled to service and assigned to a
 regular position in accordance with
 existing rules of the Clerks' Agreement."

                          - 2 -

                                        AWARD N0. 457

                                        CASE NO. CL-147-W


The Organization argues that Claimant satisfied the two qualifying criteria for becoming a protected employee on March 3, 1985. The organization points out that on March 3, 1985, Claimant had accumulated five years of continuous service and was assigned to a regular position. The organization focuses on the Article I, Section 1(e) language stating "...the date they are eligible to become protected employes... " as the time for determining the amount of an employee's protective guarantee. The Organization submits that the language referring to the first month following the time an employee becomes eligible for protection governs the time he begins to receive protective benefits as opposed to the time he acquires protected status. The Organization concludes that an employee's protected rate is the rate of the regular assignment which the employee holds on the date he becomes eligible for protection, in this case, March 3, 1985.

The Carrier contends that the Organization's interpretation of Article I, Section 1(e) renders superfluous the clause reading "...will become protected employes on the first of the month immediately following the month in which they acquire five (5) years continuous employment..." An employee becomes protected on the first of the month immediately following the month that he completes five years of continuous service provided he holds a regular position on the first of the month after the month he accrues a five year employment relationship. In this instance, Claimant accumulated five years of service as of March 3, 1985, and based on that service, he became a protected employee on the first of the next month, that is, on April 1, 1985.

                                        AWARD N0. 457

                                        CASE NO. CL-147-W


The superficial question in this case is what is the
 amount of claimant's protective guarantee? However, Claimant's lowe
 protective rate is predicated on the rate of the position he
 occupied on the date he became a protected employee. See Article
 IV, Section 2 of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement, as
 amended. Thus, as discussed above, the underlying contract
 interpretation issue is when did Claimant become a protected
 employee: March 3, 1985 or April 1, 1985? To properly interpret
 the Agreement and to answer the questions at issue, we must
 carefully dissect the very precise language adopted by the parties
 in Article I, Section 1(e).
 Under Article I, Section 1(e), employees who are hired
 on or after January 1, 1980 (like Claimant) must meet a single
 threshold requirement before they have an opportunity to be
 eligible to become protected employees. They must accumulate five
 years of continuous service with the Carrier. Article I, Section
 1(e) also contains a condition precedent to an employee's
 acquisition of protected status. The proviso is that the employee
 must be regularly assigned. However, it can only be determined if
 the employee has satisfied the condition precedent after
 ascertaining the date he is "...eligible to become protected..."
 (In any event, there is no doubt that Claimant herein satisfied the
 condition precedent inasmuch as he held a regular assignment on
 both March 3, 1985 and April 1, 1985.) Once employees meet the
 threshold criterion, they become eligible to be a protected
 employee "...on the first of the month immediately following the

 month in which they acquire five (5) years continuous employment 1400
                                        AWARD NO. 457

                                        CASE NO. CL-147-W


relationship..." Thus, the operative eligibility date or the earliest date a worker can actually attain protected status is the first day of the month immediately after the month in which an employee reaches his fifth anniversary of continuous employment

As the Carrier persuasively contends, any other construction of Article I, Section 1(e) would render superfluous the above quoted clause. The parties do not write precise and detailed contract terms only to have arbitration boards disregard their language. Contrary to the Organization's argument, Section 1(e) does not address the time an employee begins receiving benefits. Section 1(e) only specifies when an employee is vested with protective status. The Organization's interpretation of Section 1(e) confuses potential eligibility for becoming a protected employee with the actual attainment of protected status.

Applying our analysis of Section 1(e) to the facts herein, Claimant was eligible to become a protected employee on April 1, 1985 which was the first day of the month following the month (March, 1985) in which he accumulated five years of continuous service. since-Claimant was regularly assigned on April 1, 1985, he became a protected employee on his earliest eligibility date. His protective rate was fixed according to the rate of the regular position he held on April 1, 1985, i.e., the Assorter job.

The drafters of protective agreements must set an arbitrary date for a worker to become a protected employee. In all probability, the negotiators wanted to avoid cumbersome administrative and bookkeeping chores that would arise if workers became protected employees in the middle of the month. Thus, the

                                        AWARL NO. 457

                                        CASE N0. CL-147-W


parties agreed to a reasonable system whereby no worker could actually attain protected status except on the first day of a r,/ calendar month.

                        AWARD


          1. The Answer to Question No. 1 is No.


          2. Question No. 2 is moot.


          3. Question No. 3 is moot.


John B. LaRocco
 Neutral Member
 Dated: November 7, 1988

 - 6 -