(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPVTJ.

STATEMENT CF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) Bureau violated Memorandum Agreement dated July 71, 1973, National Holiday Agreement, Rule 38(b) and other related rules of the Agreement when it failed to properly compensate Mr. B. D. Hazelwood for work performed on a legal holiday.

 (2) Bureau shall now compensate Mr. Hazelwood far eight (8) hours at the rate of time and one half.

 OPINICN CF BOARD: In the spring of 1973 Claimant, working as an
 Inspector, position No. 27, was assigned exclusively to inspection work for the T & P Railway at Dallas, Texas. Pursuant to his request, the Organization and the Carrier entered into an agreement to exchange the normal Good Friday Holiday, provided in the Agreement,for the day after Thamksgiving in order to be consistent with the practice on the T & P Railway. That Agreement provided:





          "If this change meets with your approval, it will be effective January 1, 1974 and will apply only to Mr. B. D. Hazelwood, assigned to Position No. 27, located at Dallas, Texas. This letter of understanding will not set a precedent and will be in effect only as long as Mr. B. D. Hazelwood occupies this position at this location and Goad Friday is recognized as a holiday under the provisions of the February 25, 1971 Agreement, as amended."


That Agreement, dated July 11, 1973 was signed by both parties. By letter dated August 28, 1973 the understanding was transmitted to Carrier official in Chicago with the following language appearing:

          "It is fully understood that Mr. B. D. Hazelwood will observe the Friday after Thanksgiving in place of Good Friday as a recognized legal holiday, effective with the calendar year of 1974 and this will apply to Mr. Hazelwood only as long as he is assigned to Position No. 27, Inspector, located at Dallas, Texas."


C laimant bid an Position No. 7 at Fort Worth, Texas and was assigned to that position on May 23, 1975. Thus, Claimant did not get Good Friday as a holiday in 1975. Further, Claimant worked on the day after Thanksgiving that year and was not paid holiday pay for that day either, triggering the Claim herein.

 Carrier first argues that the Claim was not timely filed, since it should have been filed within 60 days from May 23, 1975. We do not agree. Claimant was unaware of the omission of holiday pay until after the Thanksgiving holiday and hence the Claim, filed December 23, 1975, was timely.

 The Crganization takes the position that Claimant should not be denied nine holidays per year as provided by the National Holiday Agreement merely because he moved from one position to another. Carrier argues that the Letter of Understanding and the Day a-ten Thanksgiving Holiday was only applicable as long as Claimant occupied Position No. 27 and when he left the Agreement automatically terminated.

 It must be observed that the holiday exchange was initiated at Claimant's suggestion and further that his changed status in moving from Position No. 27 was also at his volition. It is clear that in bidding on the new position Claimant undertook to accept all the terms and conditions of that job, including its holidays.
                                                            I


                      Award Number 22310 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-22155


    While the Board recognizes the equitable request implicit in this Claim, equity is not within our purview in dealing with Rules disputes such as this; we may only interpret the agreement of the parties as literally as possible. When Claimant was awarded the new position on May 23, 1975, the letter of Understanding dated July 11, 1973 by its explicit terms, became inapplicable. That Agreement was only applicable "as long as Mr. B..D. Hazelwood occupies this position at this location." Since the Board has no authority to remake agreements when conditions have changed, or otherwise, the Claim has no basis in the rules and must be denied.


    FINDIMS: 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 herin; and


            That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


            Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

' By Order of Third Division

    ATTEST: '~zz'y

            Executive Secretary


    i Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February 1979.


                                                              I


                                                              I


                                                            _i