Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28232
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26867
 90-3-85-3-638
 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: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) - ( Northeast Corridor

 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 Machine Operator R. Cannon holiday pay for Memorial Day (May 28, 1984) (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-1043).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Machine Operator R. Cannon shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at his straight time rate."

 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 established and holds seniority as a Machine Operator in the Track Department. Prior to the time this dispute arose, he was regularly assigned to an hourly rated Yard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The assigned workweek of the gang was Monday through Friday.

 On Wednesday, May 23, 1984, Claimant was displaced from his position by a senior employee. Claimant thereafter exercised his seniority to displace a junior employee on May 31, 1984, at which time he displaced a Trackman in Gang G-992 in the Penn Coach Yards. The instant Claim is for holiday pay for Memorial Day, May 28, 1984.

 There is no dispute in this case concerning the fact that upon displacement, Claimant lost the s contemplated in section (f) of Rule 48, and that the provisions of section (g) of that Rule are properly governing here. Those provisions are as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 28232
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26867
 90-3-85-3-638
 "(g) Except as provided in the following paragraph, all
 others for whom holiday pay is provided in paragraph (a)
 hereof, shall qualify for such holiday pay if on the day
 preceding and the day following the holiday they satisfy
 one or the other of the following conditions:
 (i) Compensation for service paid by AMTRAK is
 credited; or
 (ii) Such employe is available for service.
 NOTE: 'Available' as used in sub-section (ii) above,
 is interpreted by the parties to mean that an
 employe is available unless he lays off of his
 own accord or does not respond to a call, pur
 suant to the rules of the applicable agreement,
 for service."

 The sole dispute before the Board is whether Claimant was "available for service" as provided in sub-section (ii) of Rule 48(g) and therefore met the Rule's qualification requirements for an "other than regularly assigned employee." The Organizat Agreement, arguing that there was no evidence presented during the handling of this dispute on the property that Claimant laid off of his own accord or failed to respond to a call Claimant to perform temporary work on the dates in question, nor did it identify positions occupied displaced. Claimant had the contractual right, pursuant to Rule 18, to take ten days to either exercise seniority or furlough following the displacement on May 23, 1984. Claimant should not now be viewed as "unavailable for service" simply because he ex submits.

 Carrier does not agree with the contentions advanced by the Organization. It argues that when Cl seniority by displacing a junior employee, he failed to meet the requirements for holiday pay for an "other than regularly assigned employee." By his own actions, Claimant was not "available for service" on May 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1984, Carrier contends.

 In the Carrier's view, Claimant alone controlled his availability for service on the dates in question, and Claimant chose to make himself unavailable. This is partic from, and displaced to, Penn Coach Yard, Carrier maintains. Rule 18 pertaining to the exercise of se "shield" to protect an employee who does not immediately exercise his seniority so as to be availabl
___
 Form 1 Award No. 28232
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26867
 90-3-85-3-638

 Carrier relies in large part upon Third Division Award 23487, a case in which an employee, who was regularly assigned to a position with Monday and Tuesday as rest days, was displaced on Monday, December 31, 1979. The employee thereafter invoked he with Tuesday and Wednesday as rest days. The employee assumed the new position on Thursday, January Tuesday, January 1, 1980. The Board in that case denied the Claim, finding that, "by her own actions, claimant was not available for service on December 31, 1979 and January 2, 1980."

 While this Board endeavors to avoid, whenever possible, rendering inconsistent and conflicting interpretations of national and local Agreements, we are forced to conclude that a different result must be obtained in the instant case. Unlike Award of the term "available" as it is defined in the Agreement, we find that it is that particular language that must be controlling here. As the note in section (g) indicates, " . . his own accord or does not respond to a call . . . for service." (Emphasis added.) The Claimant in this case was displaced from his regularly assigned position on May 23, 1984. As the Organization aptly pointed out, there is no evidence that he was thereafter called for service either the day before or the day after the holiday. Therefore, the crux of the dispute is whether he laid off "of this own accord" by exercising his seniority on May 31, 1984.

 Carrier has argued that by failing to immediately displace to another position, Claimant constructively or, in effect, "laid off." The difficulty with that argument is that Carrier never presented any evidence during the handling of this dispute on the property that Claimant could have displaced a junior employee so as to be available for service on the day preceding and the day succeeding Memorial Day. Absent proof that Claimant constructively laid off, we find that he was "available for service" within the meaning of the Agreement.

 The Claimant in this case, although he ultimately displaced a junior employee at the same location, had the contractual right under Rule 18 to exercise his seniority within ten days. We will not find under the holiday pay provisions of this Agreement that an employee has laid off of _his _own accord while exercising his Rule 18 seniority rights during the ten day period, unless there is convincing and probative evidence during the handling of this dispute on the property that he could in fact have displaced a junior employee on the relevant work days. We believe that it is Carrier's burden to come forward with such evidence, and absent such a showing by the Carrier here, this Claim will be sustained.


Form 1 Award No. 28232
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-26867
 90-3-85-3-638
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division
 Attest:
 ancy J. De a Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1990.