(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company




(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate Mr. R. L. Williams for holiday pay on Head Crew Clerk Position No. 6014 on December 24, 1982, and
(b) Mr. R. L. Williams shall now be paid an additional six (6) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of Head Crew Clerk Position No. 6014, Wellington, Kansas, for December 24, 1982.
CASE NO. 2:
(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate Mr. A. S. Amberg for holiday pay for service performed on Relief Head Crew Clerk Position No. 9300 (6014), Wellington, Kansas, for January 1, 1983, and
(b) Mr. A. S. Amberg shall now be paid an additional six (6) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of Relief Head Crew Clerk Position No. 9300 (6014), Wellington, Kansas, for January 1, 1983.
OPINION OF BOARD: The instant dispute concerns claims for two individuals
 both of whom worked at Wellington, Kansas. Case No. 1
 concerns R. L. Williams, who was employed as Head Clerk. On December 17,
 1982, Claimant was informed that his regular position would not work on
 December 24, 1982, a holiday under the Agreement. It later developed that
 the position would be required on December 24 and Claimant was so notified on
 December 23. The Claimant told his Supervisor that he wished to be at home
 early on Christmas Eve and the parties "agreed" that he would be allowed to
 go home after three hours work. The organization filed a claim on the basis
 that the "agreement" between the Claimant and his superior violated the
 Agreement between the Carrier and the organization and that the Claimant was
 entitled to holiday pay for the period after he left work. The Claimant
 wrote a letter to the Carrier stating his opposition to the Organization's
 action and his desire that the claim not be processed.
                    Locket Number CL-25669


Claim No. 2 involves Claimant A. S. Amberg who was the regularly assigned Relief Head Clerk at Wellington, Kansas. Claimant was advised on December 31, 1982, that he would be required to work the January 1, 1983, holiday. The Claimant stated that his family had already made plans for the holiday and that he wanted to depart after working three hours. The Carrier -agreed" that he could leave after three hours on January 1, 1983. The Organization filed a claim on the basis that the 'agreement" between the Claimant and his Supervisor violated the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization and that Claimant was entitled to holiday pay for the period after he left work. The Claimant wrote to the Carrier stating that he did not wish to have a claim processed on his behalf.
The instant disputes present the following issues: (1) whether or not Carrier is free to enter into Agreement with individual employes which abrogate the explicit terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, i.e., Rule 33-A (1), and (2) whether Carrier may agree to accommodate an employe's request that he be allowed to leave work before the end of his tour without the Carrier being liable for the period of the tour during which the employe was absent.
Upon a careful consideration of the record, the Board concludes that a Carrier does not have the right to enter into individual contracts with employes which serve to undermine the Agreement. Arbitral awards and case law are clear on this point. ORT v. Railway Express Agency 321 U. S. 342. However, in the instant dispute the Board is of the opinion that there is no evidence that such an individual contract was made. In the Board's view the Carrier in both instances accommodated the wishes of the Claimants which is permissible. Third Division Award 17158.
The Board is of the further opinion that absent evidence that such an arrangement was initiated by Carrier that it must be considered a request to be laid off and not an early quit.
In the instant dispute, the Board concludes Claimants initiated their lay-offs. Accordingly the Board concludes that the instant claims are without merit.
        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 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.

                    Award Number 25636 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-25669

                    A W A R D


        Claims denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September 1985.