(Mrs. Maybelle Frankenstein PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad ( company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of
 the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my inten
 tion to file an ex Parte submission on March 12, 1974 covering an unad
 justed dispute between me and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
 Railroad Company involving the question:

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant made a request to be absent from her position
 on October 8 and 9, 1973 to take care of personal busi
 ness. On October 5, 1973, Carrier advised her in writing that her request
 was not approved. In spite of Carrier's disapproval Claimant did not pro
 tect her position on the 8th and 9th.

 On October 18 Carrier preferred the charges against claimant which read:

















The investigation was held and the decision rendered within the time limits provided by Rule 22(a) and (b). Claimant was removed from the position of Assistant Bureau Head in the office of the Manager of Equipment Accounting. The contractual result of that removal was that Claimant, under the governing rules, could perform extra work or bid for any vacancy or new position which was bulletined. She could not, under the terms of the Agreement, exercise displacement rights over a junior employee occupying a position. In effect she was furloughed and was governed by Rule 72(d), which reads:

        "(d) When forces are increased or unfilled vacancies occur, furloughed employees, when available, shall be recalled and returned to service in the order of their seniority and employees shall be required to return when so called. Furloughed employes failing to return to service for extra work when called and furloughed employes failing to return to service for other than extra work within seven (7) days after being notified (by mail or telegram sent to the last address given) will be required to give satisfactory reason for not doing so, otherwise they will terminate their seniority.


        If an employe, after filing his name and address, is recalled to service and is, at that time, w regular assignment in his other seniority district, that will be considered a satisfactory reason for not returning to work upon recall as provided in Rule 1 Carrier, under such circumstances, will not be required to again call this employe for service until he is again unemployed and files his name and address in accordance with Rule 12(b). NOTE: The work 'unfilled' as used in Paragraph (d) of this rule means a position or vacancy that remains to be filled after the provisions of other rules of the agreement have been complied with."


On November 14, 1973, Claimant was advised of an unfilled vacancy, which her seniority would entitle her to fill. The letter to Claimant stated:
                Award Number 20718 Page 3

                Docket Number MS-20662


                          "November 13, 1973


                          File: 150-Employees-General

                          Frankenstein, M.K.


CERTIFIED MAIL
 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mrs. Maybelle Frankenstein
 629 Kenwood Avenue
 Libertyville, Illinois 60048

 Dear Mrs. Frankenstein:

 Attached hereto is a copy of Bulletin No. 282 dated November 6, 1973 advertising Sirter Grade 'B' Position No. 42840 in the office of Manager-Revenue Accounting in Seniority District No. 71.

 There were no applicants for said position, consequently there exists a vacancy thereon for which you are hereby being recalled in accordance with the provisions o
Please arrange to report to Mr. D. C. Fish within the prescribed time period as set forth in Rule 12(d).

                          Yours truly,


                          (s) J. C. Manders"


Claimant did not return to Carrier's service or give a satisfactory reason for rot doing so and therefore she terminated her service under Rule 12(d) of the Clerks' Agreement.

 Claimant has asserted that the removal from her excepted position was improper because it was based on an alleged improper motive. She relates that her refusal retaliate and deny the request for time off. It does appear that the request did fall in a peak period. In any event the request had been denied and in spite of this Claimant took the time off. She should have complied with Carrier's direct order and p
After the investigation and her removal from her position Claimant could have filed a protest as provided in Rule 22(c). She failed to do so. She also failed to respond to the notice of recall and under the governing rule she therefore terminated her seniority.

 Both her failure to proceed under Rule 22(c) and her failure to respond to recall require the Board to deny her claim.
                Award Number 20718 page 4

                Docket Number MS-20662


        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: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1975.