In Award 8539 claims were filed by employes occupying 7-day positions for a day's pay at time and one-half rate in addition to the day's pay for the holiday not worked. In deciding that case Referee William F. Coburn made the following observations:

"2. Article II of the 1954 Agreement was designed primarily to insure maintenance of weekly take home pay for those regularlyassigned hourly rated employes who prior to that time had lost a day's pay when the holiday fell on a work day of his work week.

3. Seven-day positions under the Guarantee Rule of the basic agreement here were paid for holidays whether worked or not.

4. There is nothing in the basic agreement or in the 1954 National Agreement that would prohibit the Carrier from blanking these positions on holidays provided payment for eight hours at the pro rata rate is made.

Furthermore, Article 23 of the basic agreement provides the only requirement for payment of the time and one-half rate when a 7-day employe actually works on a holiday. To attempt to read this requirement into Article 24 of the same contract is manifestly unsound under any principle of contract construction."

To support its claim the Brotherhood relies on Rules 22 (b) and 26, neither of which are germane to the issue in this case, since the Company has neither changed the regularly assigned hours of the claimants' positions, nor have the claimants been required to suspend work on a work day for the purpose of absorbing overtime payments. As is the normal procedure with non-operating employes, the claimants were not required to work on the holidays since their services were not needed and they were paid 8 hours at the pro rata rate therefor in accordance with Article II of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement. The contention that the Carrier may not reduce the work week below 5 days in a week in which a holiday occurs is directly adverse to express language of Rule 19 (a) wherein it is stated that " * * * except that this number of days may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur by the number of such holidays."

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: When Carrier bulletined crossing watchman positions as five day jobs was it a violation of the agreement to instruct the Claimant crossing watchman not to report on Decoration Day and the Fourth of July, both of which fell during the five day workweek and both of which are agreement-designated holidays, when the effect of such instruction is to have employes physically work less than five days although they receive straight time pay for five days?

We hold no.

The yard engine which moved over the crossing here involved was annulled on the days in question, consequently there was no need to protect the crossings. Carrier instructed the Claimant crossing watchman here involved not to report and paid them straight time. If they had worked they would have been entitled to an additional time and one-half for eight hours.

The Organization claimed that Carrier's action breached the Agreement in that regularly assigned hours were changed to avoid application of overtime rules (Rule 22) and employes were required to suspend work during an assigned work period for the purpose of absorbing overtime. (Rule 26.)

With this position we cannot agree.

The employes' regular hours were not changed since they were paid for eight hours on each day. Since they hadn't worked overtime on any other day, they were not suspending to absorb overtime further.

The language of Rule 19 (a) specifically permits a reduction in the days worked in any work week in which holidays occur.

A holiday with a workweek creates an exception to the five day workweek Rule (191/2 (a) and (b)). This result is consistent with the intent expressed in the Report to the President by Emergency Board 106, i.e., to maintain normal take home pay in a week with a holiday in it and to give a take home pay in excess of normal for those employes who work on holidays.

The Bulletin for the crossing position must be read in this frame of reference. If departure from this practice is to be attributed to Carrier, it must be unequivocal, and not arrived at by inferential reading of the language of the bulletin.

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