Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTPENT BOARD Award No. 7536
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7402
 2-IC G-EW-'78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:











Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant J. D. James, III, an Electrician at Memphis, Tennessee, requested on May 19, 1975, authority for a leave of absence from his General Foreman, W. E . Buell in order that he might work f1:Zl time for the U. S. Post Office. Such request was denied by the General Foreman. About a week thereafter, a force reduction in the apprentice ranks occurred in the Mechanical Department at T,:emphi s. Electrician Apprentice C. E. Kirklirg.,
Form 1 Award No. 7536
 Page 2 Docket No. 7402
 2-ICG-EW-'78

 as a result thereof was furloughed on May 27, 1975. The Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Local Chairman at Memphis filed claim, on June 11, 1975, alleging therein that Carrier violated Rule 22 by not granting a leave of absence on May 19, 1975 and requested that Claimant Kirkling be compensated for eight (8) hours each day that Claimant James is required to remain on his position, that Claimant James be granted the leave of absence that he requested, that it was a continuing claim fox every day of violation and that he was awaiting a reply to the claim made in accord with Rule #37.

 Claimant James, as the result of reporting ill and presenting a doctor's request therefore was given a thirty (30) day leave of absence on June 19, 1975. Carrier later ascertained Claimant James was working at the Walls, Mississippi Post Office and terminated him on July 15, 1975. Claimant: Kirkling and several other apprentices were recalled to active service July 14, 1975.

 Employees contend that the General Foreman violated Rule 22 when he refused to grant Claimant J. D. James a leave of absence, that Claimant Kirkling could have been working had such leave been granted, and that the General Foreman failed to definitely decline the claim in his July 15, 1975 letter. Said letter, in pertinent part, reads:







Carrier asserts that Rule 22 does not require that a leave of absence be granted in order to permit an employee to work for another employer, that even if such leave had been granted it would not have been cause for Claimant Kirkling, an apprentice, to have filled a journeyman's position, that the General Foreman's July 15, 1975 letter did properly set fox`uh the reasons for disallowance and that the claim is procedurally defective because the Organization failed to timely reject the decision of the second officer in the appeal procedure.
Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7536
 Docket No. 7402
 2-IC G-EW-'78

 Rule 22 - "Absence from work" - in pertinent part, reads:

    "When the requirements of the service will permit, employees on written request will be granted a leave of absence for a limited time, with privilege of renewal. An employee absent on leave who engages in other employment will lose his seniority unless special provision shall have been made in writing therefore with the proper official and committee representing his craft..."


Rule 37 - "Grievances"

 in pertinent part, provides:

 "(a) ... should any such claim or grievance be disallowed the Carrier shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee ox his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, ..."

 "(b) If a disallowed claim or grievance is to be appealed such appeal must be in writing and rmst be taken with 60 days from receipt of notice of disallowance and the representative of the Carrier shall be notified in writing within that time of the rejection of his decision. Failing to conply with this provision, the matter shall be considered closed,..."

    The procedural bars raised by both parties must, upon review thereof

fall. Rule 37, herein above quoted, has already been interpreted on this
 property by this Division in its Award 6387. The same issue, raised by
 the Employees here, was raised therein, to wit, that the phrase "disallowing
 the claim" z~ras not, as here, contained in the letter giving the reasons
 for disallowing an appeal made by the Employees. Award 6387, as did Third
 Division Awards 9615 and 10368, held "that mules such as Rule 37 above do
 not require specific language to accomplish disallowance of a claim'".
 We likewise so hold here. Similarly, Carrier ,`s contention that because
 the Local Chairman's rejection of the Master Mechanic's denial was not
 received until Noverrfber 26, 1975, 61 days after the Local Chairman had
 received such denial, must also fall. The test, under Rule 37(b) was not to measure the time on the basis of "when" the representative of the Carrier "receives" the rejection of his decision for such basis vras not conte?nplated or expressly included in the Rule. Rather, the test of measurement was whether the appeal and notification of rejection was taken and made within 60 days of the receipt by the party _possessinthe right to make the appeal. Rule 37 permits and requires that he must have a fu11 60 day period in
 Form 1 Award No. 7536
 Page 4 Docket No. 7402
 2-ICG-EW-'78

 which to exercise the right of appeal. Thus, according to Carrier's figures, only 59 days of such period had elapsed. We therefore, hold that the Local Chairman's rejection was timely made.

 Generally speaking, the primary obligation, under Rule 22 quoted herein above, rests with the employee to place a request for a limited leave of absence in writing. When such written request is presented to Carrier it then is obligated to consider it. If the requirements of service permit, such a leave, then requested leave of absence should be granted. It is otherwise mandatory. If the request is not granted then Carrier is obligated. to assume the burden to demonstrate that it was unable, at that time, to grant such a request because of the requirements of service. However, it is implicit in Rule 22 that such requests axe to be reasonable and justifiable. Carrier's obligation under tile 22 is not all inclusive. It would be an unconscionable and an unreasonable construction of Rule 22 to hold that Carrier's mandatory obligation therein, to grant a requested leave in most circumstances, was inycended to include a request for a leave of absence in order to permit an employee to engage in outside employzrent. That it was not so intended is best reflected by the second sentence of the rule. Said sentence clearly points up that whenever the question of outside employment is raised, or will be involved, such s, request would require the mutuality of interest of three parties, to grit, the employee, the Carrier and the Union. If a different arranGement was made necessary whenever outside employment is involved in a leave of absence request, then it is reasonable to conclude that Carrier was not obliged by reason of Rule 22 to mandatorily grant such a request.

 In the instant case there was no showing that Claimant Electrician J. D. James had made a request in writing for a leave of absence; but, arguendo, if he had the Board must hold that Carrier was not in violation of Rule 22 when it denied such a request.

 The claim of furloughed Electrician C. E. Kirkling, Jr. is found to be without merit. There is no contractual nexus whereby said claimant, who was an apprentice, had a contractual claim to a Journeyman's position. There was no denial of the fact that even if a leave of absence had been granted Electrician James, Carrier could have left such position vacant, filled it with another er,,:ployee or abolished such position.

    In the circumstances found herein, the claims made will be denied.


                      A W A R D


    Claim denied.


1
 Form 1 Award No. 7536
 Page 5 Docket No. 7402_
 2-ICG-EW-'78
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP4KTT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division
 Attest: Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


BY . ~ --~ -7 ~.---rz--t.t..~-', - ·2 C~-- ~_ -ci.
 i semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1978.


I