(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ( (formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1. Carrier violated the agreement when it failed and refused to properly compensate telegrapher, Mr. E. J. Feucht, for vacation allowance during his vacation periods in Sept
2. Carrier shall compensate, telegrapher, Mr. E. J. Feucht, in addition to compensation already received, 8 hours punitive, at the rate of his position of Agent Operator Hawkins, Wisconsin at the applicable rate due at the time of vacation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, regularly assigned Agent and Operator at Hawkins,
 Wisconsin, had a regular work week of Monday through Friday,
 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. He was also assigned,
 by bulletin, to work a "call" on Saturdays from 9:30 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. Claimant
 qualified for and took an annual vacation in September 1971 of twenty consecutive
 work days. The Claim herein is based on the fact that he was not paid for his
 assigned "call" on the four Saturdays included in his vacation, and that his re
 placement worked the entire assignment including the "call".

 The pertinent Rules from the December 17, 1941 Vacation Agreement and the Interpretations dated June 10, 1942 are:







                    Docket Number TE-20117


The Organization argues that Claimant should not be any worse off while on vacation than had he remained at work, according to the Vacation Agreement and Interpretation. Further, the "call" is considered a regular part of his assignment and regular overt a series of Awards dealing with the question of vacation payments for overtime worked by Claimants under varying circumstances. These Awards almost exclusively deal with the question of assigned overtime versus casual or unassigned overtime. The reasoning expressed in Award 4498, with which we find no fault, is the principle basis for the l cited; in that dispute the circumstances were almost identical to those herein. The Claim was sustained in that case, but the only rationale stated was that Claimant should be plac believe that Award is erroneous.

 The record in this case indicates that Claimant's Saturday call was "regularly" assigned work, a Among other arguments, Carrier contends that if these Saturdays were to be considered work days entitling Claimant to vacation pay, then they would have to be considered as work days in assigning the appropriate number of vacation days to Claimant. Under the Vacation Ag and not for the other. More significantly, Carrier cites a .number of prior Awards dealing with this precise issue. In the early leading case on this point, Award 4032, we said:

        "Once Sunday has been designated or regularly assigned as the rest day of a regularly assigned position - as here - we do not believe the fact the Carrier required the occupant of that position to work it thereafter, occasiona in changing its designated status ....Article 7 (a) contemplates payment shall be made to the holder of the regular assignment on the basis of the daily compensation paid by the Carrier for ''such' assignment. The word 'such' in our opinion limits payment to regularly assigned work days ...."


        Following a number of other consistent Awards, we said in Award 16684:


        "Claimant Peterson regularly worked on one of his two rest days, as did his vacation relief on August 10. He seeks compensation for those hours. However, employes on a five-day week are eligible only for five days per week of va day even if a rest day has regularly been worked and continues to be worked during the vacation. Article 7 (a) of the Vacation Agreement refers to 'daily compensation', and an employe cannot claim sixth-day hours as part of daily vacation compensation."

                    Award Number 20146 Page 3

                    Docket Number TE-20117


Consistent with the Awards cited above and on our evaluation of Article 7(a) and its Interpretat a rest day is not the equivalent of regularly assigned overtime for the purpose of computing vacation pay. Although the equities alone might cause a differing interpretation, the language of the Vacation Agreement itself and about thirty years of consistent application (and Awards) are controlling. If either of the parties believe the Rule is ambiguous and needs different interpretation, the proper forum is the negotiating table, not this Board which is not empowered to re-write rules.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secrettary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of February 1974.

 w x<2,~