(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, PARTIES 70 DISPVL : ( might Handlers, Express and Station Employee



1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, Rule 17 (d), in particular, when Mr. E. F. Direks request for a leave of absence was improperly denied on Mar 28, 1978.

 2. The Carrier shall non pay Mr. Direks claim for all expenses, incurred because of this violation from March 23, 1978 until may 14, 1978 when he returned to work in the Frankfort area.

 OPL-7101V OF BOARD: On March 22, 1978 Claimant E. F. Dircks asked for a
 leave of absence under the provisions of Rule 17 (d)
 of the parties' Agreement reading:

The reason given for the request being that Dircks was unable to hold a position at his home location and he did not want to exercise his seniority on a position some 200 miles away. At the time the request was made, there were twenty-seven Raployes furloughed from the seniority roster.

 The leave of absence request was denied. Claimant was told that ha must exercise his seniority in accordance with Rule 20 (d). Claimant initially was not denied a leave on the basis of "requirements of service." Later, an appeal it was argued that:
                    Docket Number CL-22967


        "The services of the Carrier did not justify the granting of a leave of absence to the claimant in order that the claimant could use such leave to circumvent his compliance with the provisions of Rule 20 regarding the exercise of his seniority in the usual mynror."


Before this Board the contentions of the parties are clearly stated. The Organization argues that Rule 17 is plainly written and clearly provides that Employee are to be given leaves of absences when service requirements permit. The denial of a requested leave arbitrarily, on the basis that the request lacks rule support or on the basis that the Employer must exercise seniority under Rule 20 (d), without demonstrating an overriding service requirement, violates Rule 17, it is argued.

 The Carrier argues "that the provisions of Rule 20 (d) prevail over Rule 17 (d)," the expressed purpose of the leave was not a purpose for which Rule 17 was intended and that Claimant cannot use the leave of absence clause to avoid exercising seniority away from his home.

 Carrier's argument on the superiority of Rule 20 (d) over Rule 17 (d) are not well taken. Each rule deals with separate and distinct matters and one cannot be said to prevail over the other. Rule 20 (d) is not a special rule and Rule 17 (d) a general rule, or vice versa, in the construction of the parties' Agre harmony in those instances where they both may come into play in a particular case.

 In the instant case, after the date Claimant was "forced" to exercise his seniority to a position some 200 miles away from his home, he requested a leave of absence. Under Rule 17 (d) he was entitled to receive this leave unless the requirements of the service did not permit the absence. here is no showing that the requirements of the service, such as a lack of qualified personnel, would not permit Claimant to have the. leave
 requested. Thus we find that Carrier violated the Agreement when they refuses Claimant the requested leave of absence. We will sustain part 1 of the claim.

 ?art 2 of the claim seeks reimbursement for all expenses incurred because of the violation. This part of the claim is too vague and indefinite to sustain. Claimant could be seeking a blank check which we are not willing to issue.
                    Award Humber 23124 Page 3

                    Docket Humber CL-2296T


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


        Mat the parties vaived oral hearing;


        That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are

respectively Carrier and Employes Mthin the mesaiag of the Railvay Labor
 Act, as approved June 21j, 1934; _

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A il A R D


Part 1 of Statement of Claim sustained, Part 2 of Statement of Claim denied.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,7DSZMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &4ee
 Executive Secretary

      Dated at Chicago,. Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.