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


F Claim No. 1 (File Balt.-2609, Carrier File CG-12000)

 (a) The Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement when they did not properly pay Robert .;. Bonucceili during the month of December, 1576.

 (b) The Carrier should now recompute Robert J. Bonuccelli's pay for December, 1976 and allow him $68.88 in addition to any other pay due him for this period.

 Claim No. 2 (File Ealt.-2610, Carrier File CG-12001)

 (a) The Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement when they did not properly pay Norman W. Stewart during the month of December, 1976.

 (b) The Carrier should now recompute Norman W. Stewart's pay for December, 1976 and allow him $69.86 in addition to any other pay due him for this period.

 Claim No. 3 (File Balt.-2675, Carrier File CG-12112)

 (a) The Carrier violated terms of the Clerks' Agreement during the month of Dec., 1976 when they did not properly pay Mr. Earl H. Harris for the month of Dec., 1976 ate,

 (b) Mr. Earl H. Harris, incumbent of E-1 Traveling Accountant, rate $1,859· Per month should now be allowed 1 days' pay at the pro rata rate of $1,859.00 per month because of this violation.

 Claim No. 4 (File Bait.-2983, Carrier File cc-1.3400)

 (a) The Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement on Sept. 16, 1977 when they deducted $81.47 from R. H. Powers pay check for pay period ending Sept. 2, 1977, Draft No. 38095 for one (1) days Vacation Pay taken on July 4, 1977, and

 (b) The Carrier should now restore R. H. Powers ay in the amount of $81.47, pay for the one (I) days vacation taken on July ~, 1977, which has been denied him because of this violation.


Claim No. 5 (File CC-238, Carrier File CG-1,3484)

 (a) The Carrier violated terms of the Clerks' Agreement Dec. 25, 1977 when they charged Mr. C. 0. Reynolds with as extra days vacatio a when he took his scheduled vacation during period Dec. 21 to Dec. 25, 1977, thus causing his to lose one extra day off during this period and,

 (b) Mr. C. 0. Reynolds, Chief Clark, rate of $1827.31 per month should now be allowed one days pay at the punitive rate of $1827.31 per month because of this violation.

 Claim No. 6 (File CC-243, Carrier File cG-X3859)

 (a) The Carrier violated terms of the Clerks' Agreement March 24, 1978 when they allowed Mr. Ball 5 days vacation, but did not allow his pay for the Holiday and,

 (b) Mr. G. W. Ball, incumbent of A-51 Console Operator Position, rate $1751.13 per month should now be allowed 1 day at $1751.13 per month because of this violation.

 Claim No. 7 (File HV-906, Carrier File CG-73673)

 (a) 'L"ie Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement when they did not pro?erly pay Joe W. Media during the month of January, 1978.

 (b) The Carrier should now recompute Joe W. Media's pap for January, 1978 and allow him $69.7.1 in addition to any other pay due him for this period.

 Claim No. 8 (File H'J-Q07, Carrier File CG-73660)

 (a) The Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement when they did sot properly pay Sally J. Petrusky during the ninth of January, 1978.

 (b) The Carrier should now recompute Sally J. Petruskp's pay for January 1978 and allay her $69.79 is addition to any other pay due her for this period.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves eight different Clai-'manta and may
 be summarized as follows. Each Claimant listed below was
 a monthly salaried employee at the time his or her claim arose. Each Claimant
 requested vacation days in a mouth which included a holiday specified is
 Rule 391b) of the Agreement. 7n each case, the holiday specified in Rule 39h
 occurred during the scheduled vacation period of the Claimant. Thus, Carrier
 charged each Claimant with a vacation day for that holiday but did not pay the
 Claimant beyond his or her monthly salary for the month is question. Accordingly,
 each Claimant seeks one day's pay for the month is which he or she requested
 vacation is addition to his or her regular monthly salary.
                      Award Number 24048 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-23800

HOLIDAY CHARGED DAILY OR
 CLAIMANT 1n VACATION MONTHLY PAY

 1. R. J. Baauccelli
 2. N. W. Stewart
 3. E. x. Harris
 4. R. H. Powers
 5. C. 0. Reynolds
 6. G. w. Bali
 7. J. W. Media
 8. S. J. Petrusky

 December 25, 1976 December 25, 1976 December 25, 1976 July 4, 1977 December 25, 1977 March 24, 1978 January, 1978 January, 1978

    .88 (daily)

60.86 (daily)
 1,859.00 (monthly)
 1.47 (daily)
 .827.31 (mthly)
 $1,751. L' (monthly)
 $69.11 (daily)
 $69.79 (daily)

 The Organization argues that the failure of Carrier to pay the Claimants for the holidays specified above violates sections 3 and 4 of the September 1, 1949 Agreement betc:een the parties. These Sections state:

 "3. The monthly rate of an employe will be compensated for eight hours or less per day (as assigned by bulletin) for the number of working days in a month. A month shall be the number of days therein less rest days and the holidays specified in Rule 39(b) or the days to be observed as holidays is lieu of holidays."

 "4. Regularly assigned employees hereunder will receive for each semi-monthly pay period the traditional part of the working days in the particular calendar month. For example, in a calendar month containing 21 working days an employe would receive 10/21 of the monthly rate for the pay period having tea working days, and 11/21 of the monthly rate for the pay period having eleven working days."

 According to the Organization, holidays have never been considered as work days for monthly rated employee on this property. Since each Claimant was entitled to an annual vacation of consecutive workdays with pay, Carrier could not tneZuds a holiday as one of the Claimant's vacation days. Accordingly, the Organization seeks one day's pay for each of the Claimants specified above.

 Carrier, on the other hand, contends that each Claimant was paid his or her full monthly salary for the months is question. It argues that it was never the intent of the parties for monthly employee to receive more than their regular monthly, salary. Thus, Carrier asks that the claim be denied in its entirety.

 Award No. 22634 on this property deals with facts virtually identical to the ones in these claims. There, coo sustained a claim similar to those here. No evidence has been introduced to indicate that our decision there was palpably erroneous. In the absence of such proof, consistent with the time honored principle of stare decisis, we will sustain the instant claims as
 presented. ^.
                      Award Number 24048 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-23800


        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;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193;

 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


        Claims sustained.


                            NATEINA7 RAILROAD ADJ'U5TMNT BOARD

                            By Order o£ Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By ::
        Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November 1982. -
 uu
 y
 Cl ; . ~ i
                                            V s . C


                                            G r

                                                    ,LG


                                          1 C

                                          C,`;`,:G~(\


                                            ~w.