Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9189
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8820
 2-ICG-CM-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee David H. Brown when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
 (
 ( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company

 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 employs 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, V. J. Montalbano, is a carman who works out of mays Yard in New Orleans, Louisiana. On August 4, 1979, Claimant told his foreman, C. N. Brown, that he needed time off because of his wife's health. Mr. Brown asked Claimant how much time he needed and Claimant stated that he did not knave. Mr. Montalbano presented a written request for leave of absence, but did not specify a time period. Such request was not approved. Rule 22 is applicable and provides:
Form 1 Award No. 9189
 Page 2 Docket No. 8820
 2-ICG-CM-'82
 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 therefor with the proper official
 and committee representing his craft.

 On August 5, 1979 Claimant called and informed his foreman that he was sick
 and could not come to work. Foreman Brown allowed Claimant to be off August 5,
 because of his alleged illness. On August 6, Mr. Montalbano called Mr. Brown and
 stated that he would be off for one week. Mr. Brown told the Claimant that he
 expected him to protect his job. Foreman Brown never gave Claimant permission to
 be off because the work load was extremely heavy at the time, three employes had
 just been furloughed, and the month of August is a prime vacation month.
 The Claimant's seniority.date did not permit him to take his vacation during
 August. There is a Company policy which states that an employe may, with permission,
 take his vacation at an unauthorized time if any emergency situation exists.
 In considering the employe's request, the Company noted that in 1976, 1877 and
 1978 Mr. Montalbano had some form of an emergency for which he was granted time
 off during the summer. The foreman denied the claimant's request because of the
 burden it would put on the other workers and the questionability of his emergency.
 Mr. Montalbano absented himself without permission on August 6, 7, 8, g, and
 12, 1979· He returned to work and on August 15, 1979 was notified to attend a
 formal investigation in regard to his days absent without permission. As a result
 of the facts revealed at the formal investigation conducted on August 24, 1979 he
 was suspended for 90 days.
 We address each of the Organization's contentions in challenging the discipline
 assessed.
 I. Claimant did request, in writing, a leave of absence as required under
 Rule 22 of the current agreement.
 Claimant's right to a leave was not absolute. Rather, it was subject to
 "the requirements of the service". Carrier needed Claimant to protect the service.
 2. At no time did General Car Foreman Brown actually deny Claimant
 permission to be absent an the days in question.
 Mr. Brown gave Claimant no justification for believing that his request was
 granted.
 3. General Car Foreman Brown admits that Claimant did comply with Rule 22
 in requesting a leave of absence.
 Again, compliance with Rule 22 does not mandate granting of the request for
 leave.
 4. Claimant was denied a fair hearing due to the interruptions of the
 hearing officer during the Organization's cross-examination and the `480
 Form 1 Award No. 9189
 Page 3 Docket No, 8820
 2-ICG-CM-'82
 hearing officer's role as the accuser, judge, and jury.

 The record will not support such conclusion. The hearing was fair and impartial, and Claimant was given ample opportunity to develop his defense. Further, nothing in the agreement proscribes a single official preferring the charges, conducting the investigation and assessing discipline. The test is not who handled what responsibility for Carrier. The test is whether or not all functions were handled with fairness to the accused employe. Such test was met in Mr, riontalbano's case.



















Attest; Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board

      r- --

I'~I

 By ~
      r , ~.''`?~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982,