(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPVPB:
 (The Long Island Rail Road Company

a) Carrier violated the established practice, understanding and roles of the Agreements specifically Rules "69", "72" and "73", and the vacation agreement among others, when it refused to allow payment of one hour at the time and one-half rate for Yon¢ay, August 19, and Monday, August 26, 1974 to Mr. F. X. O'Brien, the Agent at Roslyn, who was on vacation during that period.

 b) The Carrier will pay Mr. F. X. O'Brien one hour at the time and one-half rate for each day in question, specifically Monday, August 19, and Monday, August 26, 1974. The Carrier will also pay the other employee listed in this claim the hours specified at the overtime rate.

 OPINION OF HOARD: For twelve (12) years, Claimant, as part of his regular
 duties, reported to work on Monday mornings one (1)
 hour in advance of his scheduled time. 8e was compensated for said hour
 at the premium rate, and until the instant dispute, he was paid for such
 time while on vacation.

 In 1974, Carrier ceased its practice of including the hour in question in vacation pay, and the employe submitted a claim asserting a violation of the Ageemeat:



Carrier raises certain procedural objections because the Organization has attempted to prosecute the


in sern.-ate classifications and are subject to different agreements. We feel that it is not necessary to decide that issue.

 For reasons set forth below, it is necessary to scrutinize the individual fact circumstances of each. case, and apply those facts to the pertinent agreement language. The employee demonstrated, on the property, the basis for the claim on bQsl.f of O'Brien; but-no such sharing was made concerning the "other employes listed" and "any employee effected". Rather, it is merely asserted:

Significantly more information is required for this Hoard to issue a determination on the merits concerning said "other" employes WA consequently, we will dismiss the
On the other hand, we feel that O'Brien's claim was appropriately described on the property; that the applicable role was cited and that the dispute is properly before us. ..

 Carrier urges a.denial because Claimant O'Brien's overtime was not bulletined and thus was not part of the "daily" compensation due him, and it places reliance upon Award 20146.

 The cited agreement language clearly recognizes that "daily compensation" which im.material to vacat is "casual" or "unassigned". The fact that overtime is not bulletined does not necessarily mean that it was not assigned. After a practice of twelve years, the Monday overtime can hardly be considered "casual" and we must conclude that it was "signed. Award 201h6 considered a claim for time worked on a rest day and, citing certain Awards, denied the claim because it was not part of "daily compensation". Suffice it to say that no such concept in presented here. It is interesting to note, however, that Award 20146, relied upon by Carrier, states that "...we find m fault..." with the reasoning expressed in Award 4498. That Award held:

                    Docket Number CL-21157


        FIRDISGB: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 $Vloyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, !934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


Claim sustained as it applies to Claimant F. X. O'Brien. The claim is dismissed as it applies to "other employee".

                          NATIONAL RAIIZOAD ADJMTlW HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEBT:~,. gk4d6L,.~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of Jhly 1976.