(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Section Laborer H. B. Martinez five (5) days of paid vacation in 1978 (System File D-3-78/MW-7-78).

 (2) H. B. Martinez be allowed (5) days' pay because of the aforesaid violation."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, H. B. Martinez, was employed as a Section
 Laborer from July 6, 1976 through June 29, 1977. On June 29, 1977, Claimant transferred to Train Service at which time he forfeited his section seniority. Up until that time, he had 87 days as a laborer in 1977. On July 22, 1977, Claimant was dismissed from Trainman Service account not being qualified to perform the duties of a Trainman. Effective July 23, 1977, Claimant was reemployed as a Section Laborer. He remained in that position through the end of 1977, a period of 80 days.

 The Organization claims that since Claimant worked 167 days in the Section Laborer class in 1977, he is entitled to five days vacation under the Agreement. Carrier contends that Claimant was not entitled to annual vacation of five (5) consecutive days because he did not meet the requirement of Article IV - Vacations, Section 1(a). It argues that Claimant may not combine the eighty-seven days he earned as a Section laborer prior to his transfer to Trainman with the eighty days he earned from July 23, 1977 to December 31, 1977.

 Section 1(a) of Article IV - Vacations of the Agreement reads as follows:



The language of Section 1(a) is clear and unambiguous. Its meaning is readily discernible. It provides that an employe receive five days paid vacation if the employe renders compensated service on not less than one hundred twenty (120) days during the preceding calendar year. It is uncontested that Claimant worked more than 120 days - 167 specifically - in a class covered by the Agreement in 1977.

 Carrier asks us to rule that Claimant may not combine or tack his two separate periods of employment as Section Laborer. The effect of Carriers claim would be for us to rewrite Section 1(a) by inserting between the words days and during the words "of continuous service" or "of uninterrupted service." This we cannot do. If the parties had wanted to limit vacation entitlement to continuous days of service they would have so provided. Instead, the parties have required only that employes have 120 days of compensated service duri the calendar year. A break in service, whatever the cause, is of no consequence. Under the plain meaning of the language, Claimant is entitled to 5 days vacation. See Public Law Board No. 76t Award No. 5.

 In fact, it is significant to note that the parties in other sections of the vacation provision did require continuous service, e.g., continuous years of service in order to be eligible for annual vacation of ten, fifteen, or twenty consecutive work days. Surely, we must conclude that the absence of the words continuous or uninterrupted in Section 1(a) was intentional. As such, we will sustain the claim as presented.



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

                      Docket Number MW-22836

                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: " I
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of April 1980