PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Stea°.lsi:ip Clarks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station E:mploycos
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Is the Carrier improperly calculating and pay-inS
 Claimant John P. Allen the monthly Suaranzee c_ue trim
 under Article IV, Section 2 of the Agreement of
 February 7, 1965?
 2. If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirm.tiv-,
 shall the Carrier properly pay C1aiMant Allen for J,ly
 1967 and succeeding months for which he is impropc-_ly
 paid?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The instant dispute involves an interpretation of Arz_cle IV,
 Section 2, of the February 7, 1965 Fational .·.greement. Perti
 nent portions are hereinafter quoted for ready reference:
 ". . . shall not be placed in a worse position faith
 respect to compensation than that earned during _ base
 period . . . his total compensation. and total time pa-_d
 for during the base period will be separately divided
 by twelve . . . . but he shall be compensatec in addition
 thereto at the rate of the position filled for any time
 worked in excess of the time paid for during the base
 period; . . . ."
 Within this context, Claimant is a protected employee perform
 ing extra work. His monthly guarantee for the base period was calcuiazad at
 150.22 average hours and $447.33 average compensation. In computing average
 hours and compensation during the base period, Claimant's total tiMe and total
 compensation were included - - such as holidays, vacation and sic:: ti:.:e.

 In July, 1967, Claimant worked a total of 160 hours anc, i.. addition, was paid eight hours holiday pay for July 4. Under h=_s Zuarantce, he was entitled to $447.08 per month with average hours of: 150.22. _o r the total 160 hours which Claimant worked, he was paid $455.52, whic:: i.,cluded the ei,,h t hours holiday pay.

 It is the Organization's contention herein t'-:at _ .... C.__: icr excluded the hours paid for the holiday, but included it when deracrc._r-_-0 the compensation due to Claimant. Thus, it contends that Clair:ara u::s ;1c~._cc'. in a worse position with respect to compensation. In further su-~=ort o_ :.ts position., the Organization incorporated a hypothetical e::ample fo_ tl-a _~crpos;: of explaining, how Claimant's earnings should have beer, calculatcu 'oy ~.., Carrier for the month of July. Two items arc included tnorcin, co:.lp;:.;;.:tion for "holiday" and "sick", as well as the hours.

The Carrier specifically counters t::c Or;~a;:i:atio::':, hypothesis, insofar as counting ti:e sick '1zours, by rcferencc to _.rt:icl: I'.', Section. 2, ". . . less compensation for any time lost or, account o= voluntary absences to the extent that he is not available for servico . . . . ." ?t further argues that fortuitous circuatances of the calendar in a pa=- ic:=1,:r month do not affect an employee's compensation.

 In our view, the key phrase in Article IV, Scction 2, of the February 7, 196.5 Aggreeaent, is contained in the follouinV: ". . -o=^ ^'J t11-e worked 1n excess of the time paid for during the base perlo;:, (Underline added). ?!nat vas C1air.-,ant paid for during the base ;'c--ices? In arriving at the average, the Carrier included all money paid to clai-,.ant, as well as all hours for :which such payaent was :lade, i.e., aciual hors worked, holiday pay, vacation and sick leave payments. Ii] this rez;aru, the Section specifically excludes compensation for time lost on c.cco:nt of voluntary absences. Hence, we would w=ee that ti:e Organization's Ilypoti~et=Cal example containing hours for "sick" is inaccurate. :'evcrt::cless, it appears to us that Section 2, is unambiguous, insofar as it provides for adc:itional compensation for any time worked in excess of the time paid for during tae base period.

            The answer to Questions (1) and (2) is in the affinaative.


                        Murray 14. Roman


                      ii

                        ;Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, Do C.
      December 17, 1969