(H. G. Skidmore PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Lengdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of (Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: NOTICE N0. 2 - This is to serve notice, as required by the
 rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Hoard, of my in
 tention to file an ex parte submission on the 28th day of May 1971 covering an
 unadjusted dispute between Mr. H. G. Skidmore and the Penn Central Transporta
 tion Company involving the question:

 Has the Agreement entered into by and between the Pennsylvania-New York Central Transportation Company and Clerical Other Office, Station end Storehouse Employes of the Pennsylvania-New Ycrk Central Transportation Compaq represented by Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee been abrogated and have my rights, my rules, my working conditions, my fringe benefits or my privileges as guaranteed by the Employes Pre-Merger Protective Agreement contract been abridged by the officials of the Penn Central Transportation Company by the action or refusal of Mr. E. J. Gaynor, Mr. K. F. Schwab or Mr. N. P. Patterson to grant me my pre-merger vacation rights?

 OPINION OF BOARD: When Claimant was assigned to Grand Central Station he,
 and his fellow employees, began their vacations after their
 day of rest. At Pennsylvania Station, where Claimant now works, the procedure
 agreed upon between Carrier and the Organization is to begin an vacation periods
 on Saturday, regardless of where the days of rest may fall.

 Claimant alleges that this violates both the Merger Protective Agreement and the Agreement betwe that the Agreement has bean violated is not well founded. The record clearly shown that the practice of beginning vacations on Saturday is consistent with arrangements made between Carrier and the Organization. Since it reflects an agreement made between the parties Claimants assertion that it violates his rights under the Agreement is merely an nrgment that he is not bound by the Rules applicable to his class. This is an argument without merit. He is a member of the class and Rules applicable to the class also are applicable to him. The Board finds that it was not a violation of the Agreement to require Claimant to schedule his vacation in the m;nner agreed upon between Carrier and the Organization.


Claimant, as noted, also alleges a violation of the Merger Protective Agreement. That Agreement, in Section 1(e), provides for as Arbitration Committee which is charged w the Claim which alleges a violation of the Merger Protective Agreement.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Beard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        That the Agreement wan not violated.


                    A Si A R D


Claim that the Agreement wen violated denied; claim that the Merger Protective Agreement was violated dismissed.

                          NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of January 1973.


. .f-...