The Second Division cat the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the e%,idence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and emplrvos within the meaning of the Railway I,ahor Act as approved June 21, 1QA4.
This Division of thp Adjustment %an! has ,jurisdiction over the disputr., involved herein.
Thf- Clmimant in this case, Electrician 1J. Bartz, bogan a two week vacation on Soptemher 6, lqH2. With assigned rest days of Saturday and Sunday, the Claimant was scheduled to return to work on Monday, September 20, 1qR2. September F,, his first day of vacation, was Labor Day. When he returned to work, the Claimant asserts he "ound a picket line set yip by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. The Claimant did riot go to work. Thereafter, his request for payment for the Labor Day Holiday was refused. This request was made in accordance with Article lI, Section 7 of tw National Agreement, dated October 7, 1971, which, in pertinent part, states:
The C«rrier notes the Claimant did not have compensation paid for the work day immediately following his vacation period. By reason of the picket lines and strike, the Organization contends September 2t!, 21, and 22 cannot he properly regarded as "work days" within the meaning and intent of Articl.P 11, Section 7. Form 1 Award No. 10423
This Board's examination of the record discloses the Carrier's shops were not closed on Sehteml)er 2(l through 22 nor is there any evidence any johs at the Milwaukee shops were abolished. Claimant's constitutional right to honor a picket line is not material to the disptito. Under theso circumstances, we conclude the Claimnnt was properly denied payment for the Labor Day Holiday because he did not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 7.