THIRD DIVISION

Gene T. Ritter, Referee

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to allow holiday pay to

S. I. Hill (M) R. D. Spradlin (F)

J. S. Grove (M) T. P. Fliege (F)

J. D. Fifield (M) A. L. Smith (F)

B. L. Daniels (M) J. W. Williams (F)

G. W. Bond (M) G. S. Casey (L)

D. G. Miller (F) T. G. Marcellus (L)

L. M. McNamara (F) R. M. Mathes (L)

P. J. Ray, Jr. (F) H. C. Carlisle (L)

[(M) Memorial Day; (F) Fourth of July; (L) Labor Day 1969]

(System Files MP-BMWE 23 and MP-BMWE 25)

(2) Each of the above-named employes now be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates.

"ARTICLE III. HOLIDAYS

Effective January 1, 1968, Article II of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, as amended by the Agreement of August 19, 1960 insofar as applicable to the employes covered by this Agreement, other than

The section laborer starting rate (first 133 days) was $2.8095 an hour on May 30, 1969, and by July 4, 1969, had been increased to $2.8938.

The following detailed information is pertinent for each of the individual clamants listed in the foregoing tabulation:

[Holiday time reports not reproduced.]

NOTE: Listed on time reports but not the subject of claim are other such new temporary employes (also not considered regularly assigned), who entered service prior to a holiday and were terminated after a holiday, without any holiday or 40-hour week contention made for them; for example, May 1969 entrance to service, i.e.: J. A. Cline -in 5/21/69, discharged 6/4/69; J. M. Creager-in 5/5/69, resigned 7/16/69; H. D. Allbright-in 5/26/69, resigned 6/5/69.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The question to be resolved in this dispute is whether or not the named Claimants (with the exception of Claimant Bond were "regularly assigned employes." Carrier contends that Claimants did not qualify for holiday pay as provided for in Article III, Holidays, of Appendix No. 12, National Agreement of May 17, 1968. Carrier alleges that because of Rule 2 "requiring approval or disapproval of Claimants' application for employment within 60 calendar days after applicant begins work", that these Claimants were "temporary" employes. It has been agreed by both parties that the Claimants received compensation for work on workdays immediately preceding and following the involved holiday. The Organization alleges that the Claimants were "regularly assigned hourly rated employes" who received compensation credited to workdays immediately preceding and following the holidays involved herein. Carrier alleges that the named Claimants had not been employed for 60 days and that their application for employment had neither been approved nor disapproved; that the named Claimants' positions were not raquired to be bulletined and were, therefore, other than regularly assigned employes. Carrier also alleges that they failed to meet the requirements of Section 1, paragraphs b, c and d, pertaining to other :ban regularly assign:·d employes requiring compensation for service for 11 or more of the o0 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday and also requiring a seniority date of at least 60 calendar days or 60 calendar days of continuous active service preceding the holiday.

Under authority of Awards 15894 (Heskett), 14325 (Dorsey), and 12180 (Pane), this Board will reject the contentions of Carrier that Claimants herein were not "regularly assigned." As stated in Award 15894, supra, "the fact that the position was not properly bulletined under Rule 8(c) is conjectural and immaterial. Claimant was not a furloughed employe temporarily filling a position owned by another-he was a `regularly assigned employe' within the meaning of the Agreement." Thus, there is an unqualified distinction between the two groups of employes for holiday purposes. Also, the claim for Clamant G. W. Bond will be upheld for the reason that Carrier's procedural objection was not raised on the property. See Awards 18500 and NDC Decision No. 5.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD