employe, but an extra employe, and as such was not eligible to qualify for holiday pay May 31 or July 4, 1954.

Summarizing, the carrier respectfully submits that Section 1 of Article II of the Agreement of August 21, 1954 applies only to regularly assigned employes, employes can only become regularly assigned by bulletin, the agreement rules do not support the employes contention that extra employes should be considered regularly assigned when performing extra work en a permanent position.

The claim is entirely without merit and should be denied.

All data contained herein has been presented to the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants here base their respective claims for holiday pay on Article If of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, asserting that when an "extra" telegrapher temporarily takes the place of, or substitutes for, a "regularly assigned" telegrapher, he is entitled to be paid holiday pay under the aforesaid Agreement.

Numerous decisions of this Division have held that in order to qualify for holiday pay under the 1954 Agreement, an employe must be one who is "regularly assigned" and that extra employes do not become "regularly assigned" merely because they assume temporarily the duties of a regularly assigned position. (Awards 7721, 7430, 7432, 7978, 7979, 7980, '000 '

We adept the reasoning of and the conclusions reached in the Awards cited above and hold that the claim here is without merit and must be denied.

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

That the Agreement was not violated.

AW2_RD