OPINION OF BOARD: Will Honor was the regularly assigned Chef operating on diner, Trains 5 and 6, between Hamlet, North Carolina, and Birmingham, Alabama. Due to circumstances not here important he made oral request for a leave of absence to the Carrier's Superintendent of Dining Cars for the avowed purpose of protecting his seniority rights. In compliance with such request the official last named granted Honor a written leave of absence for ninety days effective October 13, 1947 and expiring January 10, 1948.

The vacancy thus created in the position of Chef on Trains 5 and 6 was bulletined in conformity with Rule 5, Section (g) of the current agreement. The claimant, A. S. Malcolm, conceded to then be Honor's junior, bid for and was awarded the position on November 19, 1947. He then took over the assignment and worked it until December 17, 1947, on which date he was replaced by Honor who had returned and reported ready for duty.

The claim is founded upon an alleged violation of Rule 5 (1) of the current agreement which reads:

"LEAVE OF ABSENCE. (1). An employe shall not be granted a leave of absence for a longer period than three (3) months, except in case of sickness of himself or members of his immediate family, or when serving on the committee. Proper leave of absence must be obtained from the Superintendent of Dining Service and shall be in writing if leave is to be for more than thirty (30) days, copy to be furnished to the General Chairman. An employe who engages in work outside the company while on leave of absence shall forfeit his seniority unless special arrangements have been made in advance with the Superintendent." (Emphasis supplied.)

The principle, in fact the only, contention advanced and urged by the Brotherhood in support of the claim is that the rule heretofore quoted required Honor's request for a leave of absence as well as the leave of absence itself to be in writing. Based on this construction of the rule it is argued the Carrier had no right to grant him the leave of absence in question except on his written request and that its action in doing so upon his oral application only constituted a violation of the rule and resulted in a forfeiture of his seniority rights even though such leave of absence is conceded to have been granted in written form.

We fail to find anything in Rule 5 (1) which warrants the construction given it by the Brotherhood. Its terms are clear and unambiguous. When carefully analyzed, we are covinved they compel the conclusion that when more than thirty days' leave is desired it is the leave of absence, not the request therefor, which has to be in writing. Since that was obtained in the instant case the requirements of the rule were satisfied.

Suggetsions are to be found in the record to the effect Honor engaged in work outside the company while on leave, that he did not return to work until after expiration of the date fixed for its termination, and that no copy of such leave of absence was furnished to the General Chairman, all in violation of the rule. Heretofore we have indicated those matters were not urged or relied on as grounds for allowance of the claim. Notwithstanding, it should perhaps be stated they were not established by proof and hence afford no sound basis for upholding it.

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 the agreement was not violated.

AWARD