(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the then current Clerks' Agreement, particularly Rules 1, 3, 5, 27, 28 and 6 the name of Chief Caller H. L. Graham from the Pocahontas Division, Clerical Seniority Roster, without affording Mr. Graham an investigation under Rule 27.













OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant H. L. Graham was granted leave of absence from
 his regular assignment of Chief Caller at Bluefield*
 West Virginia for the purpose of pursuing union business under Rule 17(a).
 Claimant was marked off under Rule 17(a) and was absent from his regular
 assignment on 128 of the 134 assigned work days from August 1, 1972 through
 February 8, 1973, vacation period of December 6 through 24, 1972 being
 excluded. There was no showing that he was not on legislative or union
 business during the days he was marked off under Rule 17(a). However, Car
 rier showed beyond any doubt that the Claimant was employed as a full-time
 member of the faculty (12 classroom hours per week, plus advising and com
 mittee work) of Concord College at Athens, West Virginia from August 21,
 1972 through the date of March 9, 1973 when the Carrier's Superintendent
 notified Claimant in writing that since he had engaged in outside employ
 ment without proper agreement, as required under Rule 17(g), while on leave
 of absence, he had automatically forfeited all seniority held under the
 applicable Clerks' Agreement and that his employment with the Carrier was
 terminated immediately.



The language of this special rule is clear and unequivocal. If an employe on leave engages in outside employment without written agreement between Management and the out of service and automatically forfeits all seniority. The record is clear that Claimant did engage in full-time outside employment; and there is no evidence anywhere in the record, either during the handling on the property or in the Petitioner's submission or rebuttal, to indicate that a written agreement existed to allow Cl of absence.

 The Employes contend that the Carrier was required to give Claimant an investigation under Rule 27, the discipline-investigation rule, before removing him from the seni well settled by this Board that failure to comply with leave of absence rules neither constitutes discipline nor entitles employees to a hearing under the discipline rule.


The Employes cite Third Division Award 17072 as an award supporting their contentions. Clearly t since the Claimant of Award 17072 engaged in outside employment while he was absent on vacation, as opposed to outside employment while on leave of absence for sick leave, the Claimant had not automatically removed himself from service in violation of the
Further, the Board feels it is unfortunate indeed for a person with thirty one years of service to lose his seniority. However, the parties' collective bargaining agreement contains a rule specifically covering the matter of this case; and the Board is bound to follow the clear language of this agreement. The Board is without discretion to weigh equitable arguments in the face of the clear rule of the parties.



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






                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of August 1974.