(Brotherhood of Railways Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers., Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT (7F CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

1. The Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Clerk A. Statt eight ($) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of Position No. GT-494 for January 1LO 1980' as holiday pay.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required~to compensate Clerk A. Statt eight (8) hours' pay at the rate of Position No. GT-494 as holiday pay for January 1s 19$0.

 OPINTON OF BOARD: Claimant was regularly assigned to Position No. GT-494
 (Yard Clerk-Weighmaster) until Mondays December 31,, 1979 when she was displaced by a mare senior employe as the result of a reduction in fonrce. On Thursdays January 3s 1980, claimant elected to invoke her seniority rights., in accord with Rule 19 of the applicable agreements to fill a regularly assigned relief position (Position No. GT-1186R). Position No. GT-494 has scheduled rest days every Monday and Tuesday. Position No. GT-1186R has scheduled rest days every Tuesday and Wednesday. The Carrier did not pay the claimant for the New Years Day holiday. The claimant now urges us to award her eight hours of holiday pay for Tuesday., January is 1980.

 The Organization contends the claimant is entitled to holiday pay because she filled her regular assignment the last workday before the holiday and reported to Position No. GT-1186R the first workday after the holiday. According to the Organizations the claimant should not be deprived of holiday pay since she had seven calendar days (pursuant to Rule 19) to exercise her seniority rights after she was displaced. The Carrier argues that between the time claimant was displaced. and the time she elected to fill Position No. GT-1186R s she was not a regularly assigned employe, To receive holiday pay as other than a regularly assigned employe,, she must satisfy one of the two conditions set forth in Section 3 of Supplement No. 7 - the Nonoperating National Holiday Provisions.
 Award Number 23487
 Docket Number CL-23987

 Page 2

 We agree with the Carrier's position. Rule 19 is separate and distinct from the Holiday Agreement and. so it is the latter which controls holiday pay. In this case' when claimant decided not to immediately exercise her seniority rights on Monday., December 31, 1979, she lost the status of a regularly assigned employe and she did not regain regularly assigned status until January 3, 1980. Under the following unambiguous terms of Section 3 of the Holiday Agreement (which refer to "days" rather than "workdays"), other than regularly assigned employes must meet one of these two conditions on the day before and the day after the holiday to be entitled to holiday pay:

 "(i) Compensation for service paid by the carrier is credited; or

 '"(ii) Such employe was available for service."

 By her own actions, claimant was not available for service on December 31: 1979 and January 2, 1980. Claimant failed to satisfy either condition and, thus, she has no right to receive holiday pay for January 1' 1980.

That the parties waived oral hearing,;

 That the (terrier 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 not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 a

'I-- - klozlw~


Executive Secretary

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24UT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, tt.is 8th day of January 192.