(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard Coa: Line Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated Rule 62, and other rules of the Agreement, when it refused and failed to grant Clerk A. E. Fountain, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, an additional five (5) days vacation for calendar year 1974.

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate A. E. Fountain five (5) days pay at one and one-half times the pro rata rate of position assigned October 12, 1974, if not regularly assigned to a position the last position worked prior to going on vacation aforesaid.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts giving rise to the instant claim are
 essentially uncontroverted. Claimant entered
 Carrier's service July 10, 1972. He rendered 110 days of compensated
 service during calendar year 1972 and in excess of 200 days of compensated
 service in calendar year 1973. On September 19, 1974, Claimant wrote
 Superintendent Strange, Jr. requesting ten (10) days'vacation which he
 claimed he was entitled to. However, Mr. Strange, Jr. advised Claimant
 that inasmuch as he had only 110 days of compensated service during 1972,
 he was thereby entitled to only five (5) days'vacation in 1974.
 Claimant took the 5 days'vacation as suggested by Mr. Strange, Jr. and
 then filed the instant claim for payment of 5 additional days vacation
 which he contends were due him by virtue of Rule 62 of the controlling
 Agreement.

 This Board is at a loss to understand why the Carrier refused to grant Claimant 10 days'vacation in 1974. Rule 62 - Addendum No. 3 - Section 1, paragraph (b), in clear and unambiguous language, provides that an employe shall be entitled to 10 days'vacation provided: (1) he renders compensated service on not less than 110 days during the preceding calendar year, (2) he has two or more years of continuous service with the Carrier, and (3) during such period of continuous service he renders compensated service on not less than 110 days in each of two such years, not necessarily consecutive. At the time Claimant


requested 10 days` vacation, he had fully complied with the aforementioned prerequisites. He had rendered compensated service in excess of 110 days during the 1973 calendar year; he had more that 2 years of continuous service with the Carrier; end he had rendered not less thaw 110 days of - compensated service in both calendar year 1972 and calendar year 1973. Claimant fully complied with the r quirements of Rule 62 - Addendum No. 3, Section 1 (b) and was therefore e: fled to 10 days' vacation in 1974.

 Apparently Carrier concl.;ed that Rule 62 - Addendum No. 3, Section 1 (a) was applicable to. Claimant in September 1974. However, that assumption was erroneous. Rather, inasmuch as Claimant met all the requirements of Section 1 (b) at the time he applied for his ZO days' vacation it was this provision, not Section 1 (e),that was controlling. And as noted heretofore, Claimant met the conditions prescribed by Section 1 (b).

 Inasmuch as Claimant was required to work during the period that he was contractually entitled to as additional 5 days' vacation for calendar year 1974, consistent with Section 4, Article I of the August 21, 195* National Agreement, Claimant is entitled to compensation at the time and one-half rate for this period. The claim is fully warranted and it shall be sustained as a result.



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



Claim sustained.
                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~ A~ ./LI Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1977.