(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:( (Kansas City Terminal Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the Agreement between the parties when it failed and refused to pay Claimant, A. F. Wilcox, in accordance with Rules of the Agreement and the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, for the holiday of February 18, 1974.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to pay Claimant, in addition to allowances heretofore made on such holiday, the difference between such allowance and the rate of the position to which assigned and actually worked on the holiday.

 )PINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a regularly assigned Mail Handler, worked for
 one day, Washington's Birthday, in the higher rated position
 of dispatcher. For this service he was paid one day at time and one-half at
 the Dispatcher's rate and one day pro rata at the rate of his regular assign
 ment, Mail Handler. The pro rata pay is in issue.

 jhe Employes conteAd that the one day pro rata pay should have been at the Dispatcher's rate, instead of the Mail Handler's rate, on the ground that such pay should be at the rate of the position to which the Claimant was assigned on the holiday. The Carrier contends that the one day pro rata pay was properly paid at the rate of the Mail Handler's position, on the ground that such pay should be at the position to which Claimant was regularly assigned. Both of these basic positions center on Section 1(a) of the National Holiday Agreement which provides that:

The Employes assert that the term in the above text stating "the position to which assigned" refers to the position to which assigned on the holiday. The Carrier's view is that the term refers to the regularly assigned position, which in this case is the position of Mail Handler.


In support of their basic position the Employes assert: (1) that the Carrier has interpreted and applied the Agreement in the manner and by the payment method urged herein by the Employes for eighteen years prior to 1972; (2) that the Claimant was "assigned" on the holiday to the higher rated position under the provisions of the Bulletin and Assignment Rule (Rule 6) currently in effect; and No. 15328 (1967), and Award No. 36, SBA 174 (1969). The Carrier's defensive arguments are: (1) that prior payments, if any, which accord with the method urged by the Employes were in error and hence would not establish a precedent; (2) that the Claimant's temporary move-up to a higher rated position for one day cannot be construed to mean the same as bidding and being assigned to vacancies in accordance with bulletin and assignment rules; and (3) that denial of the claim is supported by Second Division Awards Nos. 2169 (1956), 2350 (1956), and 2437 (1957).

 The Employes' first contention was in effect denied by the Carrier's assertion of error respecting prior payments, if any, of the kind claimed here. In the face of this denial the Employes offered no evidence to support their contention and it is therefore concluded that the Employes' first contention is not supported by the record.

 In discussing whether the one day move-up was or not pursuant to the Bulletin and Assignment Rule, the parties' Submissions refer to Rule 6 of the Agreement and the "guaranteed Extra Board Agreement of January 31, 1967." The pertinent portions of the Rule and Agreement now follow.







Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement. Section 1(i) and Section 2(b)








The Employes assert that the position involved in the Dispatcher vacancy was builletined and posted on the holiday, and that the Claimant bid on and was assigned to puch position in accord with the underlined text of Ruleu6. However, the Carrier submits that such text was added to Rule 6 on July 2, 1970 for the sole purpose of establishing a written record of an employe exercising seniority to a higher rated position for one day; and that, since both the amendment to Rule 6 and Section 2 of the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement would accomplish the same purpose, the Rule 6 amendment has nothing to do with bidding and being assigned. The Employes' position on this facet of the dispute is supported by the record. Nothing in the text of the Rule 6 amendment suggests that its purpose is limited to recordkeeping. It plainly and unambiguously requires that certain short vacancies shall be "bulletined and posted each day at least 15 minutes prior to the starting time" of the vacancy. Obviously, the text concerns the subject of bulletins, bids, and assignment and it is therefore concluded that the Claimant was assigned to the one-day Dispatcher vacancy through the exercise of his seniority under the


bulletin and bid procedure provided by Rule 6. The fact that the same result or purpose could be achieved under the Extra Board Agreement does not alter this conclusion because that fact, at most, merely demonstrates that the taking of the position for one day could have occurred by the concurrent effect of both Rule 6 and the Extra Board Agreement. Also, there is nothing in the latter Agreement which make
The Authorities cited by the parties dealt with disputes concerning a regularly assigned employe who filled a vacancy for longer than one day, including a holiday, as contrasted with the herein one-day situation. However, the authorities make itclear that a Claimant's status on the day of the holiday is the determining factor in a dispute of this kind and there is thus no significance in the length that the cited authorities have reached opposite conclusions on the same issues and that the Employes' authorities support the claim while the Carrier's authorities support the den which is not germane because the Claimant in that Award worked his regular assignment. The Opinion in Third Division Award No. 15329 is as follows:



In ruling that holiday pay was payable at the rate of the position to which an employe was assigned on the day the holiday fell, Award No. 36 SBA No. 174 stated that-

 "the Holiday Rule uses the words 'assigned' and not 'regularly' assigned." and that-







In Second Division Award 2169, the Opinion denied a claim similar to the herein claim with the following explanation:

A like finding was made in Second Division Award 2350 with the following statement:

In examining the foregoing authoritiqs it is apparent that Award 36, SBA 174, considered but declined to follow Second Division Award 2350. More important, it is also apparent that a clear ruling on the herein issue was made by Third Division Award 15329, as well as that this Award is the most recent of the cited authorities on such issue. Further, Award 15329 cannot be said to be


in palpable error and thus the conflict between the Third and Second Division authorities will be resolved by treating Third Division Award 15329 as a prior precedent for the instant case, which also arises on the Third Division. Consequently, based on such finding that the Claimant took the Dispatcher vacancy under Rule 6 of the Agreement, the claim will




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








ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1976.