The General Chairman's letter of February 1, 1949, Exhibit (F).

J. P. Finkenaur's letter of February 3, Exhibit (G).

General Chairman's letter of February 14, Exhibit (H).

f. P. Finkenaur's letter of February 16, Exhibit (I).

General Chairman's reply of February 26, 1949, Exhibit (J).

The Company believes your Honorable Board after considering the facts submitted, cannot but conclude that the claim of the Organization is extremely unreasonable, not adequately supported and beyond the intent of Section (E-2) of Rule 11 of the current Agreement.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute here, covered so fully in the record that it is not necessary to relate it in detail, arises out of the interpretation of Rule 11 of the Agreement, effective June 1, 1944. Rule 1'1, Section (e-2) reads:

"(e-2) Employes' representatives will on reasonable notice be granted necessary leave of absence for investigation, consideration, and adjustment of grievances and other organization matters involving the Company and its employes."

The complaint here grows out of the refusal by the Company to grant leave to three employes at different points of operation to participate in a conference on grievance matters with their General Chairman and Ofcials of the Company. The request for the conference and for participation of some of the employe representatives was made, in the first instance, by the General Chairman. A conference day was agreed upon. The employe representatives then made application for leave through the Company's Local Agents.

The refusal was not peremptory. The Assistant to the President, to whom the General Chairman had addressed his request, merely replied, "I am not familiar with the local conditions in the respective territories but feel certain that mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made." This was followed a few days later, however, as each of the three employe representatives made application locally for leave, by refusal in each case. The reasons given were, "Without incurring overtime, we will be unable to grant this absence at this time", and, "Account necessary to incur overtime during your absence, your request is enied". The reason given orally in the third case was the same. The amount of leave requested appears to have been one, two and three days, respectively, depending on travel requirements.

Nowhere in Rule 11, Section (e-2)- do we find justification for such refusal The Company cites Rule 11, Section (a) as warrant for their action. This part of the rule reads:

"The arbitrary refusal of a reasonable amount of leave of absence to employes when they can be spared, or failure to handle promptly cases involving sickness or business matters of serious importance to the employe is an improper practice and may be handled as unjust treatment under these rules."

The Company urges that the phrase "when they can be spared" in this part of the rule applies equally to Section (e-2). We do not believe this was the intent of the parties; on the contrary we believe section (e-2) was written for the specific purpose to which it refers, namely, to provide leaves of absence for employes' representatives to handle business in which both the employes and the Company are concerned. The only qualification stated in Rule 11, Section (e-2), is "on reasonable notice". We do not here undertake to interpret the words, "on reasonable notice", except to hold that we find nothing in the record before us to Indicate that the requests

involved here did not meet that requirement. This is no evidence of abuse of the rule. Temporary inconvenience of the character indicated or payment for a few hours of overtime for replacements connot be so construed.

This rule does not introduce a new or novel practice into the railroad industry; similar rules and the practice growing out of their application have been in existence for many years. It represents a form of cooperation that gives recognition and vitality to the mutuality of interest of the parties in their employer-employe relationships. Some significance may attach to the fact that this appears to be the first complaint of this character that has been submitted to this Division

We conclude that the Agreement was violated.

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 Tune 21, 1934;

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

That the Agreement was violated as contended by Petitioner.

AWARD