(formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Maine Central Railroad Company (Portland Terminal Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Clair of the General Committee of the Transportation-Commu
nicat_on Division, BRAC, on the Portland Terminal Company,
T-C 5831, that:

Carrier violated the June 24, 1968 Holiday Agreement when they denied 8 hours holiday pay to `!r. E. A. Wakefield for July 4, 1970 (a guaranteed holiday if the employee qualifies'. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Wakefield 8 hours at the pro rata rate in accordance with the June 24, 1968 Agreement.

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim in this case is that the Carrier violated the June 24,
1968 Holiday Agreement when it denied holiday pay to the claim
ant for July 4, 1970. Claimant, a telegrapher, also worked as an Extra Train Dis
patcher on his rest days. From June 29, 1970 through July 10th, 1970 the Claimant
covered the third trick assignment of a regularly assigned train dispatcher. The
rest days of that dispatcher's assignment were July 4 and July 5, 1970, when the
claimant elected to work as a telegrapher. Since the dispatcher's job is a monthly
rated job, the rate of pa.: includes pay for the holiday, as distinguished from the
telegrapher's rate of pay, which does not.

In the view of =his Board the claimant was a Train Dispatcher, from June 29 through July 10, 1970, thus coming within the full purview of the Train Dispatcher's Agree on July 6 and was not being released from that .assignment.

Referee Herbert J. Mesigh in Award #16457 reviewed and properly stated the position of this Board on such :n issue when he distinguished between circumstances where a spar is working in the dispatcer field cr. a day to day assignment, as in the case before him, and the in entire period in question as a monthly rated Train Dispatcher. The circumstances in Award No. 82 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 192 and Third Division Award No, 11317 cited by the e-.-Dloyees are the same as in .Award No. 16457 and were discussed by Referee in the following langua4=: .,








cludes holiday pay, and did not revert to his regular assignment as a telegrapher
until after July 10. The Carrier did not require him to work as a Telegrapht_
on the July 4th holiday; he chose to do so.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the leaning 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








                            By Grder of Third Division


        ATTEST:~L~ Executive ecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973.