(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company that:

 (a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Article IV, Rule 404(a), when it terminated the services of certain signal employes named in part (b named employes for April 9, 1971, a holiday.

 (b) Carrier should now compensate D. F. Marks, J. J. Goucher, R. C. Cravens, J. L. Edwards, W. W. Chancellor, H. L. Yuille, and M. D. Bradshaw for eight (8) hours' pay each for dates April 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 -- five days advance notice not given -- and eight (8) hours' holiday pay for April 9, 1971.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier posted on its bulletin board, under date
 of March 29, 1971, a General Notice that certain positions in Signal Gang No. 4 would be abolish who then became furloughed. The claim here is that the furloughed amployes should receive five days "Good Friday", April 9, 1971. Rule 404 reads as follows:



The Employes' argument for five days pay is that the employes occupying the positions abolished by the General Notice dated :larch 29, 1971, were not properly notified under the foregoing rule. The notice was posted only on carrier's bulletin board, whereas the rule requires that the notice will be given to the employes occupying such positions


and also be posted on bulletin boards. Whatever the merits of this argument might be in respect to the employes occupying the abolished positions, the argument is not valid in respect to the instant Claimants. The five day notice in Rul did not have their positions abolished; they were displaced from such positions by the incumbents of the positions that were abolished. Clearly, these Claimants are not covered by Rule 404 and we must therefore deny the claim for five d Division Award 1576 (Burch).

 With regard to the holiday pay part of the claim, the Carrier's Submission states that the Emplo in support of this part of the claim. Carrier also, both in its Submission and Rebuttal Brief, argue claim. However, the Employes contend that Carrier offered no defense to this part of the claim during handling on the property and that, therefore, the claim for holiday record bears out the Employes' contention on this point. During handling on the property the Carrier entered an extensive defense against the part of the claim which we have denied; however, the Carrier neither demanded that the Employes offer rule support for the holiday pay claim, nor in any other way entered a defense against this part of the claim. Consequently, the contentions which come too late and we shall allow the claim as presented in regard to holiday pay. Accordingly, we deny the claim for five days pay and allow the claim for holiday pay.



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

 The Agreement was not violated and part of the claim is allowed as presented.








ATTEST: (/Yr
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1974.