( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

1. Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 44 of the Schedule Agreement when it failed to compensate Mr. R. H. Schaaf,,PICL Clerk Position ;#461, Portland, Oregon, for holiday pay, Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 1974.

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Schaaf holiday pay for November 28, 1974.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant herein, a protected employe under the
 February 7, 1965 Stabilization Agreement, had a seniority date of March 10, 1942. Claimant was displaced by a senior employe on November 4, 1974 and immediately went on vacation. Upon returning, Claimant displaced a junior employe on Position #461 on November 18, 1974. He began to qualify on the new position on November
 23rd; during the period beginning November 23 and ending Decemoer 16, j
 1974,Claimant received protective compensation. Carrier characterizes
 his status during that latter period as a "trainee" or "student."
 Claimant was denied holiday pay for the Thanksgiving holiday, which
 was on the first rest day of his new position.

 Carrier, on the property and initially in its submission to this Board, argued that this Board had no jurisdiction over this dispute, since the February 7, 1965 Agreement was involved. In addition,Carrier contended that no holiday pay was due Claimant since, not having qualified, he was not yet "regularly assigned" to the new position. It is noted,_ however,_that Carrier did ultimately concede that Claimant "is entitled to holiday pay as an-'other than regularly-assigned' 'employe' even though.the_claim was_not,filed or progr
The record indicates that on the property Petitioner asserted that Claimant was entitled to holiday pay, having met the qualifications, regardless of whether he was a "regularly assigned employe" or an "other than regularly assigned employe.t,


Award Number 21796
 Docket Number CL-21609

 Page 2

 Carrier's argument with respect to jurisdiction must be rejected since this dispute is concerned solely with the schedule rules and the national holiday agreements; the fact that Claimant was a protected employe does not per se determine the jurisdiction to be asserted.

 Based on the clear language of both Rule 44 of the schedule agreement as wall as the national holiday agreements,we can see no reason to deprive Claimant of holiday pay for the day in question. The claim must be sustained.

        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 violated.

 A kT A R D
Claim sustained.

 ATTEST: /Oz 4V4 00400&404~0
        Executive Secretary


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of Ncvember 1977.