CASE NO. CL-78-E NMB CASE NO. 43 enumerated in the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement, as amended on this property, for suspending or offsetting a protected employee's guarantee. If the authors of the Job Stabilization Agreement intended for disqualification to constitute cause for suspending benefits, they could have easily added that event to those enumerated therein.

We also emphasize that Public Law Board No. 4848, Award No. 1 interpreted a similar protective agreement with identical facts. In Award No. 1, Public Law Board No. 4848 extensively analyzed the interrelationship between an employee's failure to qualify for a position and the employee's entitlement to protective pay. Public Law Board No. 4848 wrote:

Next, the Carrier submits that employees could deliberately devise their disqualifications to obtain access to a furlough allowance. To the extent the Carrier's argument is logical, it works equally well in reverse. After the permanent abolition of a protected employee's position and his displacement to the only available position under Rule 8, the Carrier could, in bad faith, disqualify the protected employee from the position relegating the employee to furloughed status without a protective allowance. The negotiators of protective agreements expect both parties to apply their contracts in good faith and refrain from manipulating the agreement provisions to create loopholes: Therefore, if the Carrier shows that a protected employee affected by a permanent position abolishment deliberately failed to exert reasonable efforts to qualify on a position, knowing that, if disqualified, he would be unable to obtain any other position, the Carrier is relieved of its obligation to pay the employee a furlough allowance. In such a situation, sabotaging the qualification and training process is akin to a failure to fully exercise seniority under Article V(c).

-2-