Wy,G~y ,/1
                        Docket Number CL-20568


        Carrier asserts that the Claimants had both been earning money during the three months prior to the period in question and were not advanced funds accordingly. In Claimants advised the Chief Dispatcher, upon being told of his Detroit assignment, that he had plans for the holiday period and could not change them, but would be available after the first of the year. The other Claimant advised the Chief Dispatcher that since his brother was not going to Detroit, he didn't see how he could go. Carrier claims that it was in dire need of operators during the holiday period in particular. Carrier states that Claimants voluntarily refused to perform service during the period beginning December 15th, and obviously were not held out of service.


        With respect to the applicability of a disciplinary hearing, the two rules at issue provide in pertinent part as follows:


                "RULE 15 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE


                (a) An employee who desires to absent himself from duty for a period of more than two (2) weeks shall make a written request to his immediate supervising officer for leave of absence. Employees who fail to have such absences from duty covered by written leave of abs forfeit their seniority rights and be closed out of service; provided, however, that in case of sickness or injury, the time limit specified in the first sentence of this paragraph (a) during which such leaves of absence must be requested will be extended."


                " HIJLE 19 - DISCIPLINE


                (a) An employee will not be disciplined or dismissed except in case of disapproved application as set forth in Rule 30, without first being given a fair and impartial hearing. Suspension pending a hearing will not be considered a violation of this principle.


                (j) This rile will not be considered as having any application to employees closed out of service in accordance with Rules 15 and 17."


    i


r
                Award Number 20426 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-20568


In its arguments the Organization claimed that the two men could not have been absent without leave of absence since they did not accept the assignment; they should have been charged with insubordination and a hearing-held. Carrier retorts that the men failed to report to a proper assignment, never requested a leave, and hence Rule 15 (a) is applicable: they forfeited their seniority.

 Petitioner argues "That Rule 15 (a) is applicable only where the employe withholds himself from service". We agree and since the record offers no other explanation f Chairman was informed after requesting relief by two Carrier Officials, prior to December 15th that the two men must protect their assignments. It follows then, that if Rule 15 (a) is controlling, the Claimants were not entitled to a hearing under the clear terms of Rule 19 (j). There is absolutely no evidence in the record to sup service by Carrier. As we have said in previous Awards, Claimants' actions in this case resulted in severance on an automatic basis and cannot be regarded as having disciplina Awards 13467, 19905, 19806, and 20086).

 In view of the entire record of this dispute and the foregoing, we shall deny the claim.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1974.