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 Trackman A. Sedillo ten (10) days of paid vacation in 1980 (System Fil3 16-v-33-4/11-2360-100-2).

 (2) Trackman A. Sedillo be allowed five (5) days of vacation pay because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OP ZIION OF BOARD: The essential facts relating to Claimant's employment history
 are uncontested. The salient question before us is whether
 or not the approximately two (2) months Claimant was not in the service of
 Carrier to wit: from November 29, 1978 to February 5, 1979, constituted a break
 in employment that would foreclose any claim to the full annual ten (10) days
 paid vacation provided by Paragraph i(b) and 1(g) of Appendix No. 1. Claimant
 argues that Carrier violated the controlling Agreement, when it only granted him
 five (5) days of paid vacation for 1980, since he had worked at least 110 days
 during 1978 and 1979 and had more than two (2) years of service. He contends that
 he had more than two (2) years of service. He contends that he had not terminated
 his employm=nt relationship with Carrier, when he left the seniority roster of
 the Signalmen's craft on November 29, 1978, since he rendered service under another
 non-operating Organization's agreement and thus, consistent with Paragraph 1(g)
 of Appendix No. 1, he was qualified for the consecutive ten (10) days annual
 paid vacation. Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g) are referenced as follows:



                        Docket Number MW-24279


Carrier contends that his employment status was fully terminated on November 29, 1978 in accordance with Section 4(c) of the Agreement memorandum governing the educational and training program for student signalman. In particular, it argues that he failed to meet the credentialling standards set forth in Section 4(c), which requires that a student signalman attain a grade of 79%0 on the test material following a period of training. It asserts that Claimant failed the examination on two occasions and was terminated pursuant to the selfexecuting requirement
        "(c) The examination to determine the progress of the Student Signalmen will be given at the end of each period.' A Minimum grade of 75% will be considered passing. If the Student Signalman passes the examination or re-examination provided herein, he shall be advanced to the next training period at that time and receive the corresponding rate of pay.


        In the event the Student Signalman fails to satisfactorily pass the examination, a re-examination shall be given within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of failure, covering the materials of the training period which he had previously failed. Failure of the Student Signalman to take an examination or reexamination when scheduled, except for control which have been accepted by the Assistant Chief EngineerSignals and the General Chairman,,an a prescribed re-examination, will result in forfeiture of all seniority and all other rights, 'and his service with the Company will be terminated immediately."


It avers that Claimant was terminated, not laid off, furloughed or absent on account of illness or disability and did not lose his seniority because of moving from one seniority roster or seniority district to another. It maintains that he was terminated in accordance with the aforesaid provision and thus there was a definable, clear break in his service.

 Fn our review of this dispute., we concur with Carrier's position. Paragraph (b) requires two (2) years continuous service to be eligible for a consecutive ten (10) days paid vacation. While he vas subsequently employed as a trackman with a seniority date of February 5.9 1979 fo1.loving his appllcation for a position a in this seniority unit comenced as of this date. Theree was no implicit or explicit extension k(c). He was simply not eligible for the additional five (5) days paid vacation he requested.

        FLYDLYGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record and all the evidence., finds and holds:

Award Number 24420
 Docket Number MW-24279

 That the parties waived oral hearing;

 Page 3

 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

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 By=-~-ru..~tcy,1.~.«c.if~.
        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1983.