(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to allow Section Foreman Elmer Sandau vacation compensation based on the straight time and regularly assigned overtime rate of his position (System File 80053-76).

 (2) Section Foreman Elmer Sandau be allowed twelve (12) hours' pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a regularly assigned Section Foreman, with
 a regular work week of Monday through Friday, took his
 annual vacation during the last half of December, 1971. Long prior to this
 vacation, he was required to patrol his section on each Sunday and/or holiday
 for which he received four hours of overtime pay. The Claimant's vacation
 relief performed the patrol work during the Claimant's vacation and it was
 resumed by the Claimant, on a continuing basis, after he returned from vaca
 tion. During the Claimant's vacation the patrol work resulted in twelve
 hours overtime pay for the vacation relief, but the Carrier declined to in
 clude such overtime in the Claimant's vacation pay.

 The Employees contend that the Carrier's action in this respect was in violation of Article 7(a) of the Vacation Agreement which reads as follows:

The Employees also cite the following interpretation of the foregoing text:



            "(Interpretation dated June 10, 1942 of Article 7 of the National Vacation Agreement.)"


      The question here is whether overtime which is regularly assigned on a rest day is the kind of overtime that is included in vacation pay under Article 7(a) and the In clear that the Vacation Agreement limits vacation pay to "regularly assigned work days" and, thus, the question must be answered in the negative. In recent Award No. 20146, this Board set out the following extract from Award No. 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 vacation and not for a sixth day even if a rest day has regularly been worked and continues to be wo compensation', and an employe cannot claim sixth-day hours as part of daily vacation compensation."


      The foregoing extract provides a clear statement of a rationale which appears to have been approved in an unbroken line of Awards involving, the instant issue. In view of these prior authorities, and on the whole record, we shall deny the claim.


            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 AA &aoa., By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST:

      Executive Secretary


      i Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1974.