Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11309
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10903
 2-CMSTP&P-CM-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company violated the August 21, 1954, Section 3, Article II and the December 3, 1975, and the December 11, 1981 National Holiday Agreements when they refused to pay Cayman S. Jenders "Holiday pay" for the holiday of December 26, 1983, namely Christmas Day.

 2. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to pay Cayman S. Jenders in the amount of 8 hours pay at the straight time (Holiday pay) rate of pay for the Christmas Day Holiday of December 26, 1983.

 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 employes 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.

In this case, the Carrier denied the Claimant holiday pay for December 26, 1983, on the basis that he did not work on December 25, 1983. It contends that December 25th was a work day and because compensation was not credited to the Claimant for the work day preceding the holiday, he was properly denied holiday pay for December 26, 1983.

 In denying the Claim, the Carrier relied upon its construction of Section 3, Article II of the August 21, 1954 Agreement which reads in part that:
 Form 1 Award No. 11309
 Page 2 Docket No. 10903
 2-CMSTP&P-CM-'87
 "An employee shall qualify for the holiday pay
 provided in Section 1 hereof if compensation paid
 by the Carrier is credited to the work days im
 mediately preceding and following such holiday."

 The Board finds that, in order to qualify for the claimed compensation, the employee must be compensated for time worked the day before and the day after a holiday. The Claimant met that requirement. There is no requirement, as held on many occasions by this Division, that the Claimant must work the holiday because he was scheduled to do so in order to receive holiday pay. (See, among others, Second Division Award No. 10683).




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ~ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of August 1987.