As your Board well knows, there is a cardinal rule of interpretation of contracts that where an agreement or contract is susceptible of two meanings, one of which would lead to a sensible result and the other to an absurd one, the former will be adopted. Obviously, in the case under consideration, to give the agreement the meaning here contended for by the employes would lead to an absurd conclusion; that is, that the carrier does not have the option of determining what positions, if any, will work on holidays.

In other words, all the provisions of an agreement should be considered together, and the interpretation which leads to a sensible result should be adhered to, rather than an interpretation which leads to an absurd result. Certainly the carrier's contention here is sensible when viewed in the light of the holiday rule, the testimony of the employes before Emergency Board No. 106, as well as the provisions of the national agreement of August 21, 1954. On the other hand, the employes' interpretation as here taken clearly leads to an absurd result.

In light of the foregoing record, which definitely and completely confirms and supports carrier's position, the contentions of employes should be unqualifiedly dismissed and the accompanying claims accordingly 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.

The claim in this case is that certain machinists and machinist helpers, named in the claim, were improperly denied the right to work on December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955. The organization demands that the carrier compensate the claimants for their loss.

The record shows that claimants, except as hereafter shown, were assigned a five (5) day work week on seven (7) day positions. The two (2 ) holidays above noted fell on one of their assigned workdays. They were not used and the organization contends this was a violation.

The claimant, C. C. Garza, was assigned Monday through Friday. He was not assigned to work the two (2) holidays. He has no valid claim. The carrier points out that Claimant H. E. Parker was a sheet metal worker who was off in force reduction on the days covered by the claim. The organization points out in its rebuttal that E. E. Parker, and not H E. Parker, is the real claimant. We shall treat the claim as including E. E. Parker as a claimant.

Claimants were not worked on their holidays but were paid for eight (8 ) hours' service at the straight time rate. Under the rules of the applicable agreement the carrier fully complied with its agreement obligations unless the note to Rule 11, current agreement, requires that employes assigned to seven (7) day service be worked on holidays falling on a day of their assigned work week. See Awards 2070, 2097, 2169.

The note to Rule 11, current agreement, provides in part:

"The regularly assigned seven-day-week positions, and employes assigned to such positions, will work the holidays. * * *."

The meaning of the note is clear. In plain language it means that holidays will be worked on regular assigned seven (7) day positions and that the regular assigned employes to such positions will do the work on such holidays.

Carrier contends that the note merely provides that when it was necessary to work a position needed in a seven (7) day operation on a holiday the employe regularly assigned to such position would work. We submit that if this had been the only purpose of the rule, the rule would serve no purpose at all. This for the reason that the Forty-Hour Week Committee in its Decision No. 2 expressly provided that:

"Where work is required to be performed on a holiday which is not a part of any assignment the regular employe shall be used."

But, in addition to the foregoing, the note clearly indicates that holidays on regularly assigned seven (7) day positions are to be worked. The note takes the dispute from under the general rule and requires a sustaining of the claim.

AWARD