issuance of leaves of absence is a prerogative of management, limited only by the obligations in that regard assumed by the Carrier in the agreements with its employes. The claim of the organization in Docket TE-1569, and in the instant dispute as well, are simply attempts to compel the Carrier to grant indefinite leaves of absence and thus perpetuate an employment relationship for those employes whose physical condition is such that they cannot hope to reenter the active service of the Carrier. It has already been decided by the Board that Article XVIII (a) of the current agreement, quoted in the Carrier's statement of facts and upon which the employes rest their claim, does not place such an obligation upon the Carrier. Article XVIII (a) is strictly a permissive rule as evidence the words of Referee Garrison in his statement that it "* * * begins with the statement that leaves 'may' be granted and ends with a requirement of written permission by the carrier, * * °" (Emphasis supplied.)

Each of the three (3) former employes involved in this dispute was afflicted with an illness that permanently disabled him for further active service with the Carrier. The determination in each case that no further extension of leave of absence would be granted was made following the allowance of extended leaves of absence and on the basis of opinions rendered by attending physicians regarding the individuals' physical condition. Mr. McCary had been on continuous leave of absence for five years; Mr. Smiley had been on leave of absence since September 27, 1937 and in the case of Mr. Nachand the record will reflect that during the three years and ten month period February 25, 1937 to December 30, 1940 he had been on leave of absence a total of two years and one month, the last leave of absence being continuous from October 30, 1939 to December 30, 1940. Despite the absence of a contrary admonition in Article XVIII (a) of the current agreement, it cannot be said that the Carrier acted either arbitrarily or capriciously in any of the cases here involved.

The organization's claim in this dispute should be denied for the following reasons:

(1) The Carrier's handling has already received the approval of the Third Division in the latter's denial of an identical dispute filed by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on this property in Docket TE-1569, Award No. 1589.

(2) Article XVIII (a) of the current agreement does not detract from the right of the Carrier to refuse further extension to leaves of absence to Messrs. McCary, Smiley and Nachand, but on the contrary supports the action of the Carrier.

(3) The claim is completely without support under the rules of the current Telegraphers' Schedule effective December 1 1938 which is the sole agreement between the parties on which an action before this Board may be brought.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are sufficiently detailed in the respective statements of facts and positions of the parties.

This award should be read and construed in relationship to and in light of Award 1589 because the same carrier and same agreement are involved.

A review .of the record herein shows nothing new except different claimants and the same principles must apply and the same conclusion reached.

We fail to see the force of the attempted argument based on the statement, "It will be noted that the claim in Award 1589 refers only to the question of extended leave of absence. In the instant case the claimants are asking that their employment relation be restored and leave of absence be extended for the duration of said illness." The allegation in the claim is that these employes were "improperly removed from service because of their illnesses" and relies exclusively on the alleged violation of Rule XVIII (a).

Attention is directed to the suggestion of Referee Garrison in Award 1589 that: "Whether or not the extended leave of absence should as a matter of equity and sound policy be automatically granted to a permanently disabled employe with less than thirty years of service is a question which should be determined by agreement of the parties. The function of this Board is limited to interpreting and applying the Rules agreed upon by the parties."

It may be that because of the comparatively short time elapsed between Award 1589 (November 13, 1941) and this one (July 24, 1942) that the parties have not had opportunity to give consideration to it but we hope that they will.

There was no violation .of Rule XVIII (a) or of any other rule of the agreement.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That there was no violation of Rule XVIII (a) or of any other rule of the agreement.

AWARD