(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation ( (Former Central Railroad Company of New Jersey)

1. Carrier violated Article 26 - Holiday Pay - of the TC Agreement when it failed to compensate regular assigned Towerman W. R. Stefanski Holiday Pay for July 4, 1975, and that

 2. Claimant W. R. Stefanski be compensated for holiday pay at 8 hours pro-rata rate of his position at Bank Tower.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant regularly worked as a Towerman, an hourly
 rated position, under an Agreement entitling him to eight hours pay for
 each holiday for which he is eligible.

 In the period in question, he worked a Monday-Friday schedule, with Saturdays and Sundays as rest days. He worked as Towerman on Monday through Wednesday, June 30 - July 2; then accepted assignment as Train Dispatcher on Thursday through Monday, July 3 - 7 (including work on July 4, a holiday) and returned to his Towerman position on July 8.






                  Award Number 22086 Page 2

                  Docket Number CL-21866


          "(b) A regularly assigned F-raploye shall qualify for the holiday pay provided in paragraph (a) hereof if compensation paid him by the Carrier is credited to the workdays immediately preceding and following each holiday or if the Employe is not assigned to work but is available for service on such days . . . ."


There is no dispute that Claimant was properly relieved of his Towerman position to accept assignment for July 3 - 7 as Train Dispatcher, a monthly-rated position under a different Agreement. The Carrier is nevertheless the employer in both instances.

 Previous awards have settled the question that, as long as the Carrier is the employer, the type of work performed by the employe does not affect his eligibility for holiday pay. Award No. 20725 (Lieberman) states in part:

          "The same issue has been before this Board on a number of occasions. In Awards 11317, 16457 and 18261 telegraphers who also worked as extradispatchers were involved, just as in the instant case. In Award 18261 we said:


              'The effect of these decisions is that the rule makes no qualifications with respect to the source of the compensation paid by the Carrier and credited to the employes' regular work days immediately preceding and following the holiday. And since only one exception - that with respect to sick leave payments - is expressed, no other or further exceptions may be implied. Such decisions cannot be characterized as palpably erroneous; therefore they provide valid precedent.'


          In this dispute, we shall reaffirm the principle that any compensation received by employes, regardless of source (except sick leave payments), is sufficient to qualify for holiday pay under the compensation test of the Agreement cited supra. For this reason, the Claim must be sustained."

                  Award Number 22086 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21866


Thus the sole issue remaining is the Carrier's contention that the Claimant is ineligible for holiday pay under the Agreement covering Towermen, since his pay as Train Dispatcher is on a monthly basis designed to include holiday pay. Such position finds some support in Award No. 19632 (Brent), although in that case the facts show that the temporary assignment to a monthly-rated position was for a more extended period.

 The Board finds that the theory of monthly pay inclusive of an additional amount for holidays (as contrasted with payment of eight hours' pay for holidays as under agreements for hourly-rated employes) does not apply, when subject to full analysis. First, as pointed out by the Organization,`employes temporarily assigned to monthly-rated positions do not receive a monthly rate, but rather such position is, according to formula, converted back to an hourly rate for purposes of paying the temporarily assigned employe. Second, the analogy is incomplete. Assume, for example, the existence of eight paid holidays per year. This means that pay for a single holiday, if included in the monthly rate, requires the earning of a month and a half pay. (Assume 12 paid holidays, and it takes a full month to earn pay for a single holiday.) Thus, the employe who is placed on a monthly rated job for five days -- regardless of what divisor is used to arrive at an equivalent rate -- comes nowhere near approximating holiday pay under the montly-rated agreement. He is getting little or no "bonus." And, as an employe continuously employed by the Carrier before and after the holiday at issue, there is no agreement rule or logical theory to deny his holiday pay.

 The Board thus carries forward one step the conclusions reached in Award No. 21848 (Mead), in which the employe was found to be eligible for holiday pay under his regular assignment. 'ale now state that brief service on a monthly-rated position on and/or immediately surrounding a holiday does not, for the reasons advanced above, constitute double or "bonus" payment under two agreements. This finding is not intended to affect previous awards which can be distinguished because the employe has completed his assignment to a position prior to a holiday or, alternately, is assigned to another position for an extended period of time surrounding the holiday.

        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;

                  Award Number 22086 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-21866


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and E.'~nloyes 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.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at 'Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1978.

                                        v .i (J