" * * * While it is true that Claimant became the owner of a regular assignment on June 8, 1955, he was not the owner of a regular assignment on May 30, 1955, and consequently he was not a regular assigned employe on that day within the meaning of Section I, Article 2.

The following awards sustain this conclusion: Awards 2052, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, Second Division; Awards 7430, 7431, 7432, Third Division."

Also, see Second Division Award No. 2300, Referee Carter, denying similar claim because Claimant was not on the involved holiday a regularly assigned employe or the owner on such holiday of a regularly assigned position.

The evidence is therefore conclusive that the effective Signalmen's Agreement was not violated as alleged, and that claim is not supported by it.

CONCLUSION

Carrier has shown that:

(a) Part of the claim demanding pay on behalf of unnamed persons is barred and should therefore be dismissed by the Board for want of jurisdiction.

(b) The effective Signalmen's Agreement was not violated as alleged, and claim is not supported by it.

Claim, being absurd and constituting nothing more than an effort by the Brotherhood to exact money from the Company for no justifiable reason whatever, the Board is left with no alternative but to make a denial award.

All evidence here submitted in support of Carrier's position is known to employe representatives.

Carrier, not having seen Brotherhood's submission, reserves the right after doing so to present any other evidence necessary for the protection of its interests.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a dispute between The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America and The Southern Railway Company et al.

The Carrier, at Cincinnati, Ohio issued Bulletin No. 529%z which stated that effective at close of workday, Wednesday, November 27, 1957, positions of all Signal Helpers were abolished. Bulletin No. 531 listed all Signal Helper positions that were abolished. All helpers were told to return to their respective assignments on the following Monday, December 2, 1957.

The Petitioner contends that the positions were not abolished but that the workweek was shortened one day for the purpose of evading holiday pay, and in so doing Rule 30 was violated.

This claim is not distinguishable from the disputes which led to Awards 10006, 10245, 10284, and 10502.

There may be equity in Claimant's position. This Board cannot consider equity. We cannot find evidence in the record to indicate that the Carrier acted

in an arbitrary manner which deprived the Employes of the opportunity to qualify for holiday pay under Section 3 of Article II of the August 21, 1954, Agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, we find the Agreement was not violated.

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.

AWARD