C AWARD N0. 1
 0 CASE NO. 1
 P
 Y SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTEPIT N0. 171

BRCTHERHOOD OF RAILUAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES

vs

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 ,?Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees that the Carrier violated the rules of the current agreement,

 ,'l. When on December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955 certain accumulative relief positions were not worked and employes on these positions, working in accu~alative service, were required to suspend work on later dates to absorb the relief work of December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955,

 ·72. That the Carrier now be required to compensate the following employees for eight hours at the overtime rate for December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955, and any other employees who may be affected whose claims are a matter of record with the Superintendent of the division on which the violations occurred.

 For rest Athey
 Wallace Kronberg
 Richard Lovdal
 Michael Wasiluk
 Russell Rose
 Allen Peterson
 Anthony Blaha
 Fred Wilson

 Joseph Beck
 Arthur Vig
 Harold Samuelson
 Gilbert Bunker
 Leonard Derheim
 Harry Gildmeister
 Oscar Akre
 Oscar Ronglien-1

The Carrier and the employee or employees in this dispute are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved
 June 21, 1934.

 volved herein.

 This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute in-

 The Employees state that the claimants involved were assigned 5 days per week Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days, but under the Memorandum of Agreement with the Carrier, entered into with the Employees July 30, 1949, the Employees agreed to work 6 Saturdays at straight time on an accumulative basis and after working those 6 Saturdays they would lay off 6 days to absorb the rest days as provided in the agreement.

The Employees state, in the claim before the Board, Christmas and New Years day, holidays under their agreement, fell on Saturday, the rest days of the claimants, and that Christmas and New Years, therefore, were not holidays that fell within the regular work week of these claimants. The Carrier blanked these positions on the Saturdays (Christmas and New Years) in question and then later required the employees involved to lay off for 6 days contending that they had accumulated 6 rest days.

 The Employees state that the compensation paid these claimants was not under the accumulative agreement but was, in part, payment that was provided for under the August 21, 1954 Agreement.

 The Employees further contend that the claimants herein involved are not assigned under the Agreement of September 1, 1950,, to 6-day positions, that they are assigned to 5--d:iy positions and this sixth day that these claimants work is work performed under the accumulative agreement of July 30, 1949.

 The Carrier states that the positions in question herein were 6-day positions and that, therefore, under the provisions of Rule 29(c) such positions could legitimately be blanked on arty or all of the specified holidays which are set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, and that, therefore; the blanking of such positions on the dates in question., namely December 25, 1954, and January 1, 1955, in no way constitutes a violation of any of the schedule rules. Carrier further states that in a letter dated April 4, 1955, addressed to it by General Chairman Emme he stated:

Carrier further states that the claimants were paid C hours at the pro rata rate for such Saturdays (Christmas and New Years) and that such payment constituted the fulfillment of its obligation provided in the Agreement of August 21, 1954.

 From all the evidence submitted at the hearing the Board finds that the Carrier and the Organization entered into an agreement dated July 30, 1949, which reads in part:


                i i


                                          Award No. 1


The Board further finds that December 25, 1954, and January 1, 1955, were not worked by these claimants but that they were paid at the pro rata rate as if they had worked on these days; that there is no wording in the accumulative agreement which makes it mandatory to work employees on a holiday in order to accumulate the required rest time. The only restriction in the July 30, 1949, Agreement is that rest time may be accumulated with the understanding that such accumulation will be limited to ten (10) days.

 The Board finds that the Carrier has properly compensated these claimants and that the Carrier has properly applied the holiday rule and the Agreement of July 30, 1949.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            /sl Thomas C. Begley

                            Thomas C. Begley, Chairman


                            /s/ C. A. Pearson

                            0. A. Pearson, Carrier Member


                            (s/ Fs A. E5nme

                            F. A. Emne, Employee Member


Signed at St. Paul, Minnesota this 10th day of April, 1957.

 - 3_