PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 To -and
 DISPUTE: Springfield Terminal Railway Company

 The record shows the parties were unable to agree on a "Joint Question" to the Board and therefore separately submitted the following:

 ORGANIZATION'S QUESTION:






CARRIER'S OUESTION:



PLB No. 5418 C-81/A-81
 Page 2

 FINDINGS:

 By way of background, the record shows the parties negotiated a new agreement that became effective on August 1, 2010. One of the changes made to their agreement involved Article 16, which is quoted as follows:




















Except for an increase in the number of Personal Leave Days (PDL) and changes in qualifying years, Article 16 remains the same as it was on May 8, 2003.
          i


          I


          I I


PLB No. 5418; 681lA-81
 Page 3
It is the Organization's position that the increased benefit of the additional PDL in Article 16.1 came about las a "quid pro quo", in return for allowing the Carrier a degree of work flexibility under Article 37. They assert that it was their "understanding" that the employees could begin taking advantage of the new benefit as of the effective date of the new agreement. i
 Conversely, pit; is the Carrier's position that the extra PDL did not change the other elements of Article 16. They assert that the PDL's are calendar year benefits that begin January 1 of each year, and they assert that they are not to be applied retroactively. They contend that the parties agreed to change the amount of the PDL's, but did not agree to change the time frame in which they may be taken.

 To support their position that the benefits in Article 16 are calendar year benefits, the Carrier directs they Boards attention to an on-property Second Division Award No. 13940, that involved the Ca;rnen's craft with somewhat similar rules. In its denial award, the Neutral stated the following:

      "The Orgajn4ation's argument is that after one year of employment, regardless of when, ate employee may take personal or sick days. Contrary to its position, the rules are clear that these benefits are calendar year benefits. Calendar years begin on January ll and last until December 31."


            I


This Board agrees with the logic set forth in the aforementioned Second Division Award; we also find irk this case that the record is devoid of any evidentiary support that would permit employees to take their PDL's other than the time frame specified in Article 16.3. Clearly, if it was the intent of tie parties to allow employees to begin taking PDL's in mid year, they should have soy staffed by either appropriate language into Article 16 or by a side letter.

 Therefore, based on the record, it is the conclusion of this Board that the language contained in Article, 16.3 is clear and lacking in ambiguity; hence the Board finds that it cannot sustain the Organization's position in this case.

 ANVARD: The answer to the Organization's question is "No".

                                              _~E;~·r ,C..f'-C'1

414.

A. F. Lamonto Franci . Do lski B. A. Wint f w
 Carrier Member Neutral Member Organization Member
 l- tl-
 / -R_.Y
 Dated doll
                                    -