(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:




1. Carrier violated the Agreement-Rules, particularly Article II, Section 3, of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, as amended by the Agreement of August 19, 1960, and further amended by the Agreement of December 28, 1967, when it failed to compensate Mr. G. M. Osborn, Clerk at Cedar Lake Yard, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for eight (8) hours on September 6, 1971, after he had properly qualified for such compensation under the Agreement Rules, and;

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. G. M. Osborn eight (8) hours at the pro-rata rate for the Labor Day holiday which fell on September 6, 1971.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant holds a regular position covered by the
 Clerical Agreement with assigned hours 7:00 a.m.
 to 3:00 P.m., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest
 days. Claimant is also a qualified Yardmaster and is sometimes required
 to fill Yardmaster vacancies.

 In the instant case, Claimant did not work his regular clerical position Friday, September 3, 1971, because he was absent due to illness. Saturday, September 4, 1971, was his first regular rest day. Sunday, September 5, 1971, he was required to work a Yardmaster position. The Claimant was required to work Labor Day, Monday September 6, 1971, on his regular clerical position. He also worked his regular clerical position on Tuesday, September 7, 1971.

 The Organization argues that Claimant worked as a Yardmaster on Sunday,-September 5, 1971, the day immediately preceding the Labor Day holiday, and worked his regular clerical position Tuesday, September 7, 1971, the day immediately following the Labor Day holiday.
                  Docket Humber M-21949


Therefore, this claim was filed for eight (8) hours pay under the holiday role.

 The Carrier maintains that the Claimant did not work on Friday, September 3, 1971, an his regular position and, therefore, he did not work the day before and the day after the holiday and is not entitled to holiday pay.

 The parties are governed by the Nanopersting (MAC) National Holiday Provisions. Article II, Section 3 provides as follows:

            ART. II - Section 3.


            "A regularly assigned employee shall quality for the holiday pay provided in Section 1 hereon if compensation paid him by the carrier is credited to the workdays immediately preceding and following such holiday or if the employee is not assigned to work bat is available for service on such days. If the holiday falls as the last day of a regularly assigned employee's xorkreek, the first workday following his rest days shall be considered the workday immediately following. If the holiday falls on the first workday of his workweek, the last workday of the preceding workweek shall be considered the workday immediately preceding the holiday."


The requirement that an employe work the day before and the day after the holiday in order to receive holiday pay apparently vas agreed mpon in order to discourage employee from "atretdhing" their holidays. The parties specifically negotiated the laageage "if the holiday falls on the first workday o! his workweek, the last workday of the preceding workweek shall be considered the workday immediately preceding the holiday." The Organization urges that ire should apply Comm sense when interpreting this role and find that the Claimant did, in fact, work the day before the holiday, regardless of the guidelines given to us by the rule.

 The parties have negotiated the rule. It is clear and it specifically speaks to the point involved in this case. Under the ciremstancDS presented, Friday, September 3, 1971, was the workday before the holiday far this Claimant. Se was off on account of illness and, therefore, is not entitled to holiday pay for IAbarr Day,
 day, er 6, 1971.
                    Award Number 22268 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21949


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whale 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 8mployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIQKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTm BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: a441. Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January 1979.