OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that when a holiday falls on one of their rest days, employes are entitled to holiday pay at the pro rata rate for the first workday after such rest day, under Article II, Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 Chicago National Agreement and Rule 47 of the Agreement between the parties on the property; and it asks holiday payment for all employes in such circumstance, effective May 1, 1954.
Claimant's argument is that Rule 47(c) provides for the substitution or observance of another day in place of the holidays enumerated in Section 1 of Article II, as specifically contemplated by the Note to that Section; and that therefore employes covered by Rule 47(c) are entitled to a day's straight time pay under Section 1 for the substituted day, namely, the workday following the rest day upon which the holiday falls.
Carrier argues that Section 1 clearly is limited to holidays which fall on a workday of the workweek of an employe, whereas the claim is for holidays which fell on rest days. Further, that Rule 47 (c) covers premium pay for work performed on holidays and is not concerned with the kind of holiday
pay provided by Section 1 of the National Agreement. Finally, that the note to Section 1 was intended to cover holidays other than those enumerated in Section 1, such as local or regional holidays, where such holidays have been observed in place of the seven listed in the rule.
We find no ambiguity in the first paragraph of Section 1. In order for an employe to receive the pay provided therein, one of the seven listed holidays must fall on a workday of his workweek. It is implicit in the claim before us that pay is being sought for employes in cases where one of the seven listed holidays falls on a rest day rather than a workday of their workweeks. Thus, there is no basis for the claim in the language of the first paragraph alone. Any support for the claim must come from the Note. The language of the Note is less clear and is subject to interpretation. Is the provision in Rule 47(c) that when a holiday falls on an employe's rest day, "the following work day will be considered his holiday" an agreement under which any other day is substituted or observed in place of" one of the listed holidays, within the meaning of the Note? We think not. Rule 47 provides for pre- 7433-67 g5
cisely the same seven holidays as does Section 1. No provision is made for substituting or observing any other day in place of any of these seven holidays. The provision is that if one of the holidays falls on an employe's rest day, the following work day shall be "considered" his holiday. It is so considered for the purpose of providing him time and one-half pay if he works on that day. "Considering" the work day as a holiday for that purpose is not substituting or observing any other day in place of the holiday in the sense in which we understand that phrase to be used in the Note.
A holding that the holiday pay provisions of Section 1 do not apply in the circumstances of this case does not, contrary to Claimant's contention, change Rule 47(c). Rule 47(c) intended that the workday following the rest day be considered as a holiday for the purposes of that rule; it continues to be so considered. Rule 47 in its present form antedates the August 21, 1954 Agreement by five years. Section 1 of the latter Agreement deals with a different aspect of holiday pay than does Rule 47. It does not follow because the workday following an employe's rest day is considered his holiday for the purposes of Rule 47, that the same workday is the holiday observed under Section 1. On the contrary, both from the language of Section 1 and its background (See Second Division Awards 2052 and 2169, and Third Division Award 7430, it appears that such an application would be inconsistent with its purpose. Under the rules cited in this case, where a holiday falls on an employe's rest day, his holiday for the purposes of Rule 47 is the first workday after his rest day; for the purposes of Article II, Section 1 of the National Agreement, it is the day on which the holiday actually falls.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
The undersigned concur completely in the Findings and Award herein. We also concur in the Opinion of Board herein with the understanding that, for the reason that Rule 47 (c) is a local rule which was continued in effect on this Carrier by agreement or practice, nothing in this Award alters the fact that rules, such as Rule 47 (c) in this case, were superseded by Article II of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.