1(b) and 1(c) of Article I provide vacations, effective with the calendar year 1954, under the terms specified therein, `to each employe covered by this agreement.' An employe retiring before January 1, 1954 was not an employe covered by the agreement."

In line with the above statement of the carriers' conference committee, claims of this nature, of which there are several. pending, were rejected, the carrier holding that the parties `who entered into the agreement must, obviously be considered as being the best qualified to interpret the provisions thereof, and while it may not be particularly relevant, it should perhaps be stated that the interpretation of the committee coincided entirely with the carrier's interpretation of the language of Article I, Section 1(c).

Attention is directed to the language of such Article I, Section 1(c), reading as follows:

"Effective with the calendar year 1954, an annual vacation of fifteen (15) consecutive work days with pay will be granted to each employe covered by this Agreement * * *."

Here is specific language making this paragraph effective with the calendar year 1954, and further making it payable to "each employe." Obviously, anyone who retired during the year 1953 or prior thereto could not be considered as an "employe" as of the effective date of Article 1, Section 1(c), and, therefore, the carrier holds that the provisions of such Article 1, Section 1(c) effective with the calendar year 1954 could not cover parties not employes as of the time such paragraph became effective since such parties could not be considered as employes.

Simply as a matter of information, it might be added that the carrier has without question paid the third week of vacation to all employes qualified therefore who retired as of January 1, 1954, or any subsequent date.

In view of the language of Section 1(c), therefore, the carrier holds that the claim of the employes in this case is without merit and must be denied.

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

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This claim is made in behalf of retired Carman Emil Nelson. Claimant was employed by carrier as a carman on March 4, 1912, at its Mississippi Coach Yards, St. Paul, Minnesota. He was thereafter continuously employed by the carrier until he retired under the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act on October 26, 1953. Before retiring he had rendered carrier one hundred and eighty-three (183) days of compensated service in 1953. He had thus admittedly earned a vacation for 1954 and carrier paid him for ten (10) days' pay in lieu thereof. Claimant contends, by reason of the provisions of Article 8 of the National Vacation Agreement and Article I, Section 1(c) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, he was entitled to fifteen (15) days' pay in lieu of the vacation he had earned for 1954. He therefore asks that carrier be directed to pay him for the additional five (5) days -which he has not received.

The foregoing presents the identical question we had before us in Docket 1988, which question we fully discussed and answered in our Award 2231, which is based thereon. What we said and held therein is applicable and controlling here. In view thereof we think the claim should be allowed.

AWARD