(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
 ( Railway Company

(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate Mr. D. W. Jeffers for holiday pay on Record File Clerk Position No. 6128 on March 28, 1975, and

 (b) Mr. D. W. Jeffers shall now be paid eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of Record File Clerk Position No. 6128, Centralized Accounting Bureau, Amarillo, Texas for March 28, 1975.

 (c) In addition'to the money amounts claimed above, Carrier shall pay an additional amount of ten' per cent interest per annum compounded annually on the anniversary date of claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Undisputed facts are: (1) Claimant Jeffers is a
 regularly assigned Record File Clerk. (2) On
 March 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 1975 he performed Train Dispatcher
 duties, protecting various Dispatcher positions. (3) He did not work
 on March 28 or March 29. (4) March 28 was a holiday recognized by the
 Clerks' Agreement, but not recognized, as such, by the Dispatchers'
 Agreement.

 Petitioner contends Claimant was entitled to holiday pay on March 28 under Section 3 of Appendix No. 5 to the Clerks' Agreement. The Carrier contends Claimant does not meet the conditions specified in Section 3, and further contends that Claimant was covered by the Dispatchers' Agreement and not the Clerks' Agreement on the March 28th holiday.

 Since Claimant was a regularly assigned Clerk,the Carrier has the burden of showing that he was not occupying that position on March 28 if its position that the Dispatcher Agreement controls is to be sustained.


This Board concludes that such burden has not been met. Claimant's assignment to Dispatcher duties on the day before the holiday was for one day only, March 27. He was notified of his next Dispatcher assignment on March 29, which he worked on March 30. At the completion of work on March 27 he did no Dispatcher duties after the holiday, which distinguishes these facts from those in Public law Board 132, Award No. 31, where the employe was given a two weeks' assignment to protect a single vacancy and the temporary assignment clearly included the holiday.

 The fact that Claimant in the present case would be entitled to have March 28 and 29 as rest days under the Dispatcher Agreement, as Carrier has established, does not necessarily. mean that he was in that status on those days. In the absence of ' clear proof in support of Carrier`s position, this Board finds that Petitioner's position regarding Claimant's March 28th status--that of a Clerk on holiday status--should be accepted.

 As a regularly assigned Clerk under Section 3, App. No. 5, Claimant was entitled to holiday pay on March 28 if he received compensation for the workdays immedi holiday. He unquestionably received pay for the day before the holiday, March 27. Since the holiday fell on the last day of his regularly assigned workweek, the first day following his rest days (March 31) is considered to be the workday immediately following the holiday, according to Section 3. The fact that he was paid as a Dispatcher the days before and after the holiday, and not as a clerk, is immaterial as no such limitation appears in the language of Section 3, which the Board has found applicable.

 The Carrier has argued that awarding Claimant holiday pay under the Clerks' Agreement would result in double pay for March 28 because the Dispatchers' pay rate includes holiday pay in lieu of recognizing specific holidays. While such a result would be undesirable, the sole issue before this of the Clerks' Agreement occurred. We do not rule upon the question of whether Claimant's receipt of Dispatcher pay before and after March 28 constituted payment for March 28 under the Dispatcher's Agreement.

 The Board recognizes the importance of stabilizing contract administration by following prior rulings. Cases cited by the Carrier however, do not resolve the issue here in dispute. For example, Award No. 274, Public Law Board 298, containing language seemingly on point, involves a claim for holiday pay under the Telegrapher agreement when the employe actually performed Dispatcher work on the holiday. Similar
                    Docket Number CL-21842


distinguishing facts are present in the other cases called to the Board's attention by the Carrier.

 The Board concludes that the claim for pay for March 28, 1975 should be allowed, but the record does not support a finding that interest be allowed.

        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 , W A R D


Claim sustained to extent indicated in above opinion and findings.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of January 1978.