Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27753
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26958
 89-3-85-3-738
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (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 Trackman J. E. Ingram holiday pay for July 4, 1984 (System Docket CR-1210).

 (2) Trackman J. E. Ingram shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at his straight time rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) above."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant was recalled from furlough on July 3, 1984, to perform Trackman's duties in the vicinity of Lewistown, Pennsylvania. According to the Carrier, these duties consisted of serving as watchman for telephone company employees who were right of way. Claimant worked, and was compensated for July 3, July 4 (holiday) and July 5, 1984. Ef
The parties agree that the sole issue here is whether Claimant was, in fact, "regularly assigned" on the days worked immediately preceding and following the holiday within the meaning of that term under the holiday pay provisions of the Agreement. The Organization contends that Carrier recalled Claimant from service and assigned him to a newly created trackman position on July 3, 4, 5 and then subsequently bulletined and awarded the position to Claimant on July 9, 1984. This is not a case where Claimant was filling a temporary vacancy caused by illness or vacation, the Organization insists. Instead, when Carrier assigned Claimant the position, he was entitled to hold
 Form 1 Award No. 27753
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26958
 89-3-85-3-738

 said position until he was displaced or until the position was abolished in accordance with Agreement rules. Under these circumstances, the Organization argues that Claimant was a regularly assigned employee within the meaning of Rule 14.

 Carrier contends that the term "regularly assigned employee" as used in Rule 14 has always been understood to mean an employee who owns an advertised position. Claimant' rather for the benefit of the telephone company employees to protect them from any traffic moving on the track. Carrier also stresses, contrary to the Organization's position, that Claimant was not assigned to a bulletined position pending award and t 1984 was not the same position to which Claimant had been recalled from furlough on July 3, 1984. Therefore, the Organization's attempt to characterize Claimant's assignmen the claim be denied.

 The Board has carefully reviewed the precedent awards and arguments of the parties. Based on that review, we conclude that Carrier is not correct when it asserts that the term "regularly assigned employee" means an employee who owns an advertised position, having obtained his position either through bidding or displacement rights. The better reasoned awards within this Division have taken a broader identified with a specific position for indefinite duration fall within the meaning of a "regularly assigned employee" even though the position they occupy is not bulletined. The difficulty with the Organization's position, however, is that the instant case does not fall even within the broader meaning attributed to "regularly assigned employe assigned to an extra job of three days' duration. In contrast to Third Division Awards 14325 and 158 assignment was of a limited and temporary nature. Moreover, Claimant does not come within the purview of the underlying purpose of the Paid Holiday provision, as explained in Thi

Form 1 Award No. 27753
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26958
 89-3-85-3-738
 application of this standard, rather than by rules
 as to methods of assignment, workweek or extra em
 ployes and other rules which use similar language
 in dealing with subjects other than the special
 subject of holiday pay. This is not to say that
 such rules may not be helpful in deciding specific
 cases; but they must always be considered in con
 junction with the underlying intent of the National
 Agreement."

 As the foregoing Award illustrates, the purpose of the Paid Holiday provision was to ensure that employees who had normal and dependable take-home pay would maintain that regularity in weeks during which a holiday occurs. That is the underlying rationale in the awards which have addressed this issue. Claimant in this case had no normal or dependable take-home pay. At the time he was recalled from furlough, all he could expect was a few days' work and a few days' pay. The fact that he was subsequently awarded a position as Trackman does not, on the dates in question. Accordingly, we conclude that he was not a "regularly assigned employee" w entitled to holiday pay for July 4, 1984.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J/I~rver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.