The Claimant was on vacation between December 11, and 31, 1992. During that period overtime was required to be worked by the Carrier. The Carrier had this overtime work performed by employees junior to the Claimant, who were paid the overtime rate. The Claimant contends that because he had made a written request to perform overtime work while on vacation he should have been called before the Carrier called junior employees for the assignments.
The Board does not agree with the Claimant. He was on vacation on all dates involved in this claim that overtime was worked by a junior employee. This Board has consistently held that employees who are on vacation are unavailable to perform overtime work. See Third Division Award 29092 wherein we denied a claim. analogous to the one now before the Board, in which the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen argued that it was irrelevant that the involved Claimant was on vacation when the overtime opportunity occurred. In our findings in Award 29092 we again embraced the rationale of Third Division Award 23198 holding that when an employee goes on vacation be is not entitled to return to service until the first work day following his vacation period. Also in Third Division Award 29261 we held that employees on vacation are considered unavailable for work during their vacation periods.
We arc not persuaded that the rational a:pressed in these Awards is in any way in error. Accordingly, we rind the claim to be without merit.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.