The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The basic facts of the instant case do not appear to be in dispute. The Claimant is regularly assigned to a Utility Clerk position at the Roper Yard in Salt Lake City, Utah, with assigned work days of Friday through Tuesday, and rest days of Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday, November 25, 2004, a rest day for the Claimant and also a holiday (Thanksgiving) the Carrier determined that there was a need for work to be performed on the Claimant's position. The Carrier called another clerical employee instead of the Claimant. Pursuant to this action, the instant claim was filed. It should be noted that it is uncontested that the Claimant was not, but should have been, properly called. The only issue in this matter is the remedy.

The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it did not select the Claimant for the vacancy. It is clear that pursuant to the Doubling Agreement, the Claimant was entitled to the position. In addition, it is clear that the Claimant is entitled to be compensated at the time and one-half rate for the holiday. As a remedy, the Organization requests that the Claimant be compensated eight hours at the overtime rate for Utility Clerk, EMR or Protective Rate whichever is higher on the above date.

Although, the Carrier admits that it acted improperly by not selecting the Claimant for the overtime, it contends that she is entitled to no more than eight hours at her EMR or protected rate, whichever was higher on November 25. This is pursuant to a longstanding past practice in which such claims have been settled on the basis of eight hours at the straight time rate. Therefore, the Carrier asserts that the Claimant is only entitled to eight hours at the straight time rate rather than eight hours overtime.

Third Division Award 7134 dealt with a similar issue. In determining employee compensation entitlement for a holiday, the Board held, in relevant part, as follows:

"The Carrier asserts that the pro rata rate only constitutes the measure of claimants' loss. We point out that the rate of pay for work performed on specified holidays is time and one-half . . . . The contract value of holiday work lost is time and one-half. In effect, the regular rate for holiday work is time and one-half. It does not involve the claim for an unearned penalty as in the case of a claim for time and one-half for overtime lost. We conclude that the claim should be sustained at the time and one-half rate."

In the instant case, after a review of the evidence and the positions of the parties, the Board finds that the Organization has been able to meet its burden of proof. The Organization has shown that the Claimant was denied the opportunity to work on a holiday. Had she worked; her regular rate for that holiday was time and one-half. Therefore, in order to make her whole, she should be compensated at the rate of time and one-half for the Thanksgiving holiday. The claim is sustained.

Claim sustained.

ORDER