the letter contemplated that the carrier be advised by the organization prior to the beginning of the vacation period if a given employe in fact had the proper "standing" on the overtime list to entitle him to have a holiday included within his vacation period. The letter specifically provided that the "local committee will make distribution of overtime record available to local supervision" for the purpose of making that determination.

Obviously, since it is the organization and not the carrier which keeps track of just who is entitled to work overtime, if such notification was to have any purpose or value in determining the inclusion or lack of inclusion of a holiday in a vacation period it had to be given before, and not sometime after the vacation period. This in fact was the customary practice followed by the parties in applying the procedure specified in that letter.

That procedure was not followed in this case, however, since the local supervision was never notified by the organization's local committee prior to claimant's vacation that he had the proper "standing" on the overtime list to be entitled to any overtime which arose during that vacation period. Their subsequent advice as to that fact after the vacation was completed was obviously of no purpose or effect.

The claimant has already been compensated for the holiday on July 4, 1960, as a part of his vacation period in accordance with Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 1, of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954. Since the work which was performed by others on that date was clearly not a part of claimant's regular assignment, the mere possibility of his having worked on that holiday by virtue of his standing on the overtime list maintained by the organization was clearly in the nature of "casual or unassigned overtime" for which no additional compensation is allowable under Article 7(a) of the vacation agreement of December 17, 1941, and the agreed interpretation thereto. The claim for an additional day's pay at the time-and-one-half overtime rate merely because, while claimant was on vacation, other employes performed work which was entirely unrelated to his regular assignment is entirely without merit under the Agreement and should 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.

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

Claimant's assignment is that of cab carpenter at Spokane, Washington, Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday rest days.

He was assigned and took his vacation from June 20 to July 8, 1960.

Monday, the Fourth of July, fell during this period and he was compensated for eight (8) hours straight time for this holiday while on vacation.

Claimant was third man out on the overtime board for July Fourth, and he had previously filled positions from the overtime board on holidays.

It is undisputed that three carmen positions at Sopokane were filled from the overtime Board on July 4, 1960.

It is claimant's contention that he is entitled to an additional day's pay at the overtime rate for the Fourth of July holiday.

Claimant bases his claim on the letter agreement of April 27, 1950, which appears in the record herein as Employes' exhibit "A" and as Carrier's exhibit "K".

The carrier denies that the letter agreement is either an agreement or an amendment to the Vacation Agreement of 1941; asserts that even if it was, as Claimant contends, it does not support Claimants' contention; that if it was an agreement, it was supplanted by the National Agreement of August 21, 1954; and further that under the agreed interpretation of the Vacation Agreement of 1941, the work here involved was casual or unassigned overtime and therefore Claimant is not entitled to any additional pay.

This dispute, while being handled on the property, revolved around the meaning and interpretation of the letter agreement of April 27, 1950. We now hold that the terms of the letter agreement of April 27 were merged into the National Agreement of August 21, 1954 which amended the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941.

The further question remains to be determined:

Under the National Vacation Agreement of December, 1941, as amended, and the agreed to interpretation of June 10, 1942, was the work here involved a part of Claimant's regular assignment or was it casual or unassigned overtime ?

While it is true that three carmen were taken from the overtime board for Carmen's work on the date here in question, the fact remains that prior to the determination of the needs of the Carrier for the Fourth of July from the overtime board, there was no assurance that Claimant would be called, and there was no assurance that Claimant would respond, since he was free to accept or reject such a call. This being so, the men who were taken from the overtime board cannot be said to have worked Claimant's regular assignment, and this was casual or unassigned overtime, within the meaning of the controlling agreement and its agreed upon interpretation.

AWARD