agreement of the parties adopted pursuant thereto, was intended and does clearly apply to the employe who is regularly assigned to and on a position and not to the position or job itself. Consequently an employe who is only temporarily filling such regular position would not be eligible to receive the benefits thereof. We find the claim should be denied." (Emphasis supplied.)

Also see similar findings in Award Nos. 2170, 2171, 2172, 2254, 2281, 2297, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2331, 2332, 2463, 2467, 2477, 2492, 2498, 2556, 2563, 2612 and 2696.

CONCLUSION

Article II, Section 1, is clear that only "regularly assigned employes are entitled to holiday payment under the rule. The last sentence of paragraph 2. Article IV, is equally clear that no advance notice before force reduction is necessary to furloughed employes performing relief work.

The undisputed facts are that during the period of the claim, Claimant Turner was relieving regularly assigned employes who were off because of illness or injury. Had these regularly assigned employes not been off during the period Claimant Turner would not have been used. Under such circumstances, he cannot be considered as a regularly assigned employe, but must be considered as a furloughed employe performing relief work.

The claim here made is contrary to the agreement and should be denied.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the w!:ole 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.

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

Claimant, a furloughed employe, was recalled under Article IV, Section 1, of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, for relief work in the absence of Carman Arnold, a regularly assigned employe absent on account of illness. He served in that relief work from February 1 to October 21, 1958, when the position was abolished. His claim is for holiday pay for July 4th and Labor Day, and also for November 1 and 4, which he would have worked if given five days notice of furlough under Rule 29 of the current Agreement.

The Carrier points out that Article II of the August 21, 1954 Agreement provides holiday pay only for regularly assigned employes, and that Article IV of that agreement provides that furloughed employes used for relief work are not subject to rules requiring advance notice before reduction of force.

The Employes reply that Carman Gowan, who was junior to Claimant, was recalled from furlough to fill a position from which Carman Thomas was first suspended and then discharged, and until it was filled by the senior applicant after advertisement; that Article IV, Section 3, Note 3 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement provides that by performing relief work a fur-

loughed employe does not waive his right to a regular assignment becoming available; that upon Thomas' discharge Carman Arnold became the only regularly assigned employe absent, so that only one furloughed employe was needed for relief work under Article IV, and that therefore "the return of Carman Gowan to service automatically placed the Claimant in a regularly assigned status".

But Claimant was recalled for relief work during Carman Arnold's illness and his status never changed until the October 31 reduction of force. Gowan was recalled for reliaf work during Thomas' suspension. His temporary use in the latter position during advertisement after Thomas' discharge was not pursuant to Article IV, did not constitute a regular assignment, and effected no change in Claimant's relief status during Arnold's continued illness. Consequently, under the clear and unambiguous Rules, he was never, during that time, a regularly assigned employe so as to be entitled to holiday pay or advance notice before reduction of force.

AWARD