3se :No. 03
PUBLIC L-.~ HCA,1D Nt,°aH_ 3778

 PARTIES
 TO
 DISPUT°

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
UNITED TRANSPCRTATICN UVICN
 GRAND 71 vs
 THE GRANTRUNK RAIL SYSTEM

 Claim of A. Poitinger for vacation pay (358.74). Docket No. 363, Claim No. 110.

 STAT=.".°NT Or FACTS:

 Cn March 26, 1984, Claimant submitted the above time claim alleging his vacation allowance should have been computed on the basis of 1/52 of his 1983 earnings under the Schedule Agreement

 ·lus the amounts allowed under the Protective Agreement in lieu o ,ive basic days.
 The Claimant was qualified for a vacation period in 1984 which was allocated March 26th trough April 1st 1984 .

 On April lu, 1982 a consolidation of work territories took place and employes of the former Detroit & Toledo Snore Line Railroad became covered by the New York Dock Protective Agreement. The Claimant during his vacation qualifying year (1983) pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the New York Dock Protective Agreement was paid certain. protective allowances.

 FINT.::VGS s

 f

 The Hoard upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that the parties to this dispute are Carrier and Employe within t.".e meaning of the Railway Labor Ac-., as amended, and that this 3oard has Jurisdiction. T'.^.e par ties .-.,ere given due no -ice o_' h=ar :na.
 II a No. 10 Case No. 63

 The issue to be decided here appears to be twofold, namely; is a vacation allowance a fringe benefit as contemplated by Paragraph "9", New York Dock; and secondly, is an allowance made pursuant to Paragraph 5 of New York Dock to be construed as "compensation earned under the Schedule Agreement".
 In our opinion the first issue need not be answered here as the Claimant was allowed a vacation period with pay. Thus he was not deprived of any benefits attached to his employment. A= to the second issue, admittedly there have bee.^. a '_i-itei number of disputes an the issue of what constitutes "compensation earned" within the meaning and intent of the National Vacation Agreement of April 29, 1949.
 The Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, covering the fourteen non-operating unions.used the terminology "compensated service" in determining the days of service for qualifying an employe for a vacation period.
 Disputes arose early relative to the interpretation of the wordage "rendered compensated service" as used under the terms of the non-operating unions Agreement.
 In order to resolve this issue an arbitration. panel was established, and the Honorable Senator Wayne Morris. a rencvvned arbitrator in several fields was appointed to arbitrate this issue. our opinion the arbi-ral decisions flowing from this dispute which precisely defined "compensated service" pas beer. widely adopted by labor and industry. It is possible this may be one of the reasons disputes under the Operating Union Agreements involving t.".e tern "compensation earned under schedule agreements" have been practically non-existent.
 The Arbitrator in the above case ruled on several issues and in so doing expressed clear opinions and guidelines on toe issue of "com7ensated service".
 He concluded in that case that time for which an employe i~ raid on Sunday or for assigned rest days or Holidays but does n. actually work and is not required to stand by for service or. those days, but is free to do anything he pleases as far as the Carrier is concerned, cannot be counted as compensated service to qualify, even though the Carrier may have paid him. He stated fortiter, it is not the pay which an employe receives from the Carrier but the days on which he performs service, including standby, deadheading, etc., that determines whether or not a given day shall be counted as a qualifying day.
 The National Vacation agreement involved in this dispute specifically states: "Compensation earned by such employes under schedule agreements held by the Crganization". The only exception to the clear language above is set forth in tte Memorandum of Agreement signed at Chicago, Illinois, April 29, 1949 ana made a part of the vacation agreement. This listing of exce^tions Ices not include reference to "protective payments" in computing basic days in miles or hours paid for. Nevertheless such protective F cents under the Washington Job Agreement of May 1936 were commonplace in 1949, wren the Vacation Agreement was adopted.
 Cur attention. has been directed to :ward No. 4, Public Law Scard No. 336'7 involving the UT'; and the Detroit, Toledo and Ircnton .Railroad Company, a subsidiary of the Grand Trunk ,nester.^.. In denying the claim covered by the above Award, the 3oard stated: "We therefore find that the dismissal and/or displacement aaewance cannot be calculated with earnings received in qualifying for vacation pay".
 we have not been referred to either precedent cases nor probative evidence which in anyway would question. the correctness of .:ward No. 4. In the absence of such a snowing and in :.he interest of what we deem to be an essential policy, Awara :No. a must be riven precedent value in deciding this issue.

Is , 1 ::o. 10

Ca- _ No. 63


Further it is our opinion tr.at to include protective payments under the New York Dock Agreement as "compensation earned by employes under schedule agreements" for the purpose of calculating vacation allowances would be writing a new provision into the vacation Agreement. It is not within our authority to do so.

 In view o_` the forgoing the claim is denied.

 AWARD:

 Claim denied.

 Neil F. Speirs, C airman do Neutral

For the Carrier '

 or the F~rga ization

 dated Nov. 5 1985

 Detroit. Michigan