(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
 ( Railway compa,mr

(a) Carrier violated provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Chicago, Illinois, on February 16, 1977, when it roved Ms. Sharon Nealis from the service of the Carrier; and

 (b) Ms. Sharon Nealis shall now be reinstated into the service of the Carrier with all past rights restored on the basis they were prior to her dismissal from the service of the Carrier on February 16, 1977; and

 (c) Ms. Sharon Nealis shall now be compensated eight (8) hours' nay each work day of Bill Clerk Position No. 6244, at the rate of $51.7647 per day since February 16, 1977, and the same for each work day of Position No. 6244 until she is reinstated into the service of the Carrier; and

 (d) That all letters pertaining to this investigation be withdrawn by the Carrier and the transcript of the investigation from her personal record.

 OP33ION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from service on March 4,
 1977 following an investigative hearing held on
 February 16, 1977 in connection with her alleged failure to execute a
 Form 1516 Standard Leave of Absence application. This disposition was
 appealed on the property and is presently before th.ls Appellate review.

 In considering this case, the pivotal question that we must examine carefully is whether or not claimant was obligated under the specific circumstances of this dispute to complete this form.


Admittedly, it could be argued that her apprehensive perceptions regarding the possible loss of employment benefits justified or at least defensively explained her position but her sum total deportment must be assessed within the interpretative ambit of Rule 13, General Rules for the Guidance of Employes, 1975, which is quoted in pertinent part hereinafter "Employer must not absent from duty without proper authority and when authorized absence is in excess of ten (10) calendar days, entire absence must be authorized by formal leave of absence (Form 1516 Standard) except for scheduled vacation period."

 In the instant case, claimant was placed on Medical leave of absence by a carrier official on December 20, 1976, after she disregarded his advice that she seek medical care for her psychological condition. It was not an impermissible decision, since her emotional status potentially affected carrier's ability to provide a safe work environment.

 During the month of January, 1977, a professional medical diagnosis of her condition noted that "psychotherapeutic intervention is recommended." It was followed by additional requests to persuade her to execute this form. On February 7, 1977 she was notified by the Superintendent to appear for a formal investigation on February 11, 1977 to determine whether she violated Rules 2 and 13 on account of her absence from duty without authorized leave of absence, beginning February 1, 1977. It was subsequently rescheduled and held on February 16, 1977.

 Careful reading of Rule 73 does not reveal any distinctions between an authorized leave of absence initiated by an employe and a leave of absence initiated and authorized by the carrier. The Agent was not barred from placing her on a medical leave of absence, given her mental condition and, as such, was an authorized absence. Claimant was obligated to execute Form 1516 Standard within the ten (10) calendar days following February 1, 1977 and her failure to observe this timetable was at her own peril.

 In carrier's letter of September 2, 1977 to the General Chairman, the basic principle governing this dispute was cogently articulated. On page 2 of this communication, carrier stated in part that "It has been the practice on this property from time immemorial that when an employe is being held off his assignment due to substandard medical condition in excess of ten calendar days, that such employe will obtain a formal. leave of absence. The carrier tries '_o remind employee when they are being held off their assignments due to
                  Docket Humber CIr22467


substandard medical condition that they must obtain a formal leave of absence." There was nothing in the record to refute this construction and it is squarely on point with the specific facts herein.

 We can well nadsrstand claimant's concern for protecting her employment rights and conditions, but she was required by the clear language of Role 13 to execute Form 1516. She should have completed the form tinder protest and filed a formal grievance to contest its application, rather than resort to self-help.

 Her continuous refusal to execute this document proved counter productive, thus leaving us with no viable alternative other than to deny the claim.

        FI2QDINGs: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral heating;


That the Crier 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 d1spnte involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violatedo


                  A W A R D


        Class denied.


                        NATIONAL BAa.BOAD ADJUTMM HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          ecutiv Secretary


Dated at Chicago, n1in^is, this30th day of November 1979.