(K. C. Elmore PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT CF CLAIM:

OPINION CE' BOARD: The record shows that claimant was employed as a
 section laborer by the Carrier, with a seniority date of April 13, 1976.

 On May 30, 1979, claimant made a request by telephone to his foreman for two personal days off, May 31 and June 1, 1979. The fern did not grant the request, but referred claimant to the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer granted permission to claimant for leave of absence for Thursday, May 31, 1979,, for personal reasons.

 On June 1, 1979, the Chief Engineer wrote claimant to report for investigation and hearing on June 11, 1979, to determine his responsibility,.if any, in connection with violation of Rules "P" and "W" of the Rules for the Maintenance of Way and Signal Department when he allegedly requested personal leave of absence under false pretenses and engaged in other employment on May 31 and June 1, 1979, and possibly previous dates.









        "Hhile.on duty, employes must not engage in any activity which say interfere with the proper discharge of their duties. Employes must not read magazines, newspapers oar other literature, nor use radios or television when,not connected with their work. Sleeping on duty is prohibited.. Lying down or .in a slouched position, with eyes clos*4-covered or concealed will be considered sleeping."


        "(W) - Other Employment: Employes will not be permitted to engage in other employment or business without permission of their employing officer."


The investigation was postponed. and. conducted on June 19s 1979. In the investigation there was substantial evidence, including claimant's admission, that claimant bed requested and obtained a leave of absence for personal business on May 31, 1979, and had. engaged in other employment without making the necessary special arrangements in writing wi granting the leave of absence and in accordance with Rule 15(c) of the applicable collective bargaining Agreement had forfeited all seniority rights.

 Rule 15(c) of the applicable collective bargaining Agreement provides:

              "RULE 15 - leave of Absence


        ....


        "(c) An employe absent on leave, who engages in other employment will forfeit all seniority rights, unless special arrangements shall have been made in writing with the official granting the leave of absence and copy furnished the General Chairmen."


The Board finds Rule 15(c) to be clear and unequivocal. It is self-executing and an investigation under Rule 32 is not required where Rule 15(c) is applicable. We find that none of claimant's substantive Agreement rights was violated in the manner well settled that the Board, being an appellate tribunal, may only consider issues handled in the usual manner on the property as required by Section 3, First (i)of the Flsilway labor Act. It is also well settled that disciplinary proceedings under an agreement are not crimianl proceedings and that strict rules of evidence do not apply.

        The Board has no alternative but to deny the claim.

        Award Number 23292 Page 3

        - Docket Number MS-23488


FILINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon., and
 upon the vhole-record and all the evidence,, finds and holds:

 That the Osrrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively On-Fier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act., as appravdd June 21s 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 ADJW24ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ae4cz

        Fxediidvre Secretary


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