SPECIAL BCdRD OF AD.TJSTP~:C,~ .·;0. 663
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airlin"c. and Steamsb-ip C1~.,s,
 Ilk ) FrciEIa Handlers, Express & St ation E:::ployes

 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Perc iu.r;uatto D-strict)
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Did 1-ir. Merrill Smith, a protected as rcEular ~ssi~;::cd
 ,.
 employee, receive his no=-:.,a compensation unde_ lrcic_c
 IV, Section 1 of the February 7, 1963 Agree-.cr;t?
 2. Is this employee entitled to holiday pay fcr januc_ry 1,
 1963, in addition to his five day guarantee cc-~.:encing
 January 2, 1968 to January S, 1965 inclusive?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant is a protected furleul,hed extra emplo-ce. i?e worked
 as an extra from Tuesday, December 26 through Saturday,
 December 30, 1967. 1·:onday, January 1, 1963, was a desinnated
 lejal holiday. Although Claimant did not pcrfor:-,, an-; scrv_ce
 on the holiday, the Organization asserts that he was entitled t0 i:oi_dc;·pay
 pursuant to Article IV, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 ia: =o-.sl . _rae:rant.
 Inasmuch as the National Holiday Agreement was noz adopted until Doce-.,-.Iper 23,
 1967, the Carrier initially declined to pay Claimant for the holiday.

 On the property, the Organization progressed the anstan= dis:ute solely on the basis o== holiday pay for January 1, 1963. Subsecu-ntly, ',:'.:e Carrier recognized the validity of the Claim and conceded its error by adjusting his holiday rate of pay.

 In our view, the instant dispute represents an enlar,c--.:ant of the Claim on the property.

The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is moot as the C1ci:Manc was compensated for the January 1, 1963 legal holiday.

                      Neutral iember


Dated: W'ashin~ton, D. C.
      December,17, 1969