Form 1                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
                                                        FIRST DIVISION
Award No. 24512
Docket No. 44264
95-1-94-1-U-1759

     The First Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert Richter when award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:   (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
                                      (
                                      (Union Pacific Railroad Company (former
                                      (  Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of Engineer C. R. Stapp for $488.74 of MKT merger guarantee for the month of August, 1992."

FINDINGS:

The First Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant is a protected employee as a result of the UP/MKT merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Carrier may adjust the guarantee payments if a protected employee is voluntarily absent which results in a loss of earnings.

Claimant was working in pool freight service at North Little Rock, Arkansas. During the period from August 26 through August
31, 1992, the Claimant's work activity was as follows:

"August 26 - Prior to his turn leaving town, Claimant requested and was granted one paid personal leave day.

August 27 claimant was marked back on the board, but his turn had not returned to town.

August 28 Claimant was marked on the board, and his turn was back in town, but not called.

August 29 - Prior to his turn leaving town, Claimant requested and was granted one paid personal leave day.

August 30 - Claimant was marked back on the board, but his turn had not returned to town.

August 31 - Claimant was marked on the board, but his turn had not yet returned to town."

As a result of the above activity, Claimant was paid for two personal leave days. When claiming his guarantee, the Carrier
deducted three days for being unavailable to work.

The Organization argues that the Claimant was available for service on the days in question and the Carrier had no right to
deduct three days from the guarantee. Attachment VI, Article 1, Paragraph 4(a) reads in as follows:

"If a displaced employe's compensation in his retained position in any month in which he performs work is less than the aforesaid average compensation (adjusted to reflect subsequent changes in general wage levels) to which he would have been entitled, he shall be paid the difference, less compensation for time lost on account of his voluntary absences to the extent that he is not
available for service."

It is the position of the Organization that when the Claimant marked up he was available for service even though his assignment was at the away-from-home terminal.

The Carrier argues that the Claimant is trying for a windfall by manipulating the Personal Leave Day Agreement to get more days off with pay. It further argues that the Protection Agreement is to provide a "safety net" for employees, and it is not intended to give employees extra benefits, as it claims in this case that the Claimant is trying to get.

The question for this Board to decide is whether the Claimant was available for service. The Claimant was in pool service which operates on a first-in, first-out basis. On August 26, before his turn left town, the Claimant took a personal day. When the
Claimant marked up on August 27, his pool turn was out of town.  Therefore, he was not available to work the assignment. On August 29, the Claimant did a repeat performance. Claimant's assignment did not return to town until September 1, 1992. The Claimant was not available to work his assignment until it returned to North Little Rock. The Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD

Claim denied.

ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not
be made.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of First Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of October 1995.