(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Fb<ployes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) Trackman-Driver S. G. Grantham was unjustly held out of service on July 25 end 26, 1977 by Foreman A. A. Prichard,

 (2) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to schedule and hold an investigation which was timely and properly re nested in conformance with Article 11, Rule 91(b) (1) (System File s-1496.

 (3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, Trackmnn-Driver S. G. Grantham shall be paid for time lost on July 25 and 26, 1977."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant asked far and received permission to be off one
 day, July 18, 1977. Re dial not report to work the next
 day but apparently sees word to his foreman that he would not be in to work
 the balance of the week. It is not refuted that at his request and by agree
 ment of his foreman and roadmaeter, Claimant was carried on vacation for the
 week of July 18-22, 1977. However,, when he returned to work on July 25, 1977,
 his foreman suspended him for two days without pay for not reporting back to
 work on July 19, 1977. Under date of July 28, 1977 Claimant's union represent
 ative filed claim as follows:







Carrier's Division Engineer to whom the claim is addressed did not respond nor was s hearing held as requested. Under date of August 12, 1977 the Organization's General Chairman requested payment of the claim on grounds of failure to comply with Rule 91(b) which reads as follows:

        "(1) The employs, or the General Chairman acting in behalf of the employs, shall make written request for an investigation to the employe's mediate supervisor. Such request shall be made within 15 days date of discipline, dismissal or alleged unjust treatment.


        (2) If a request for as investigation is made in compliance with requirements of paragraph (1) above, the employs shall be qPPorded a fair and impartial investigation. The investigation will be held 15 days of the date of the request made by the employs or the General Chairman, unless a postponement is agreed uton by the Carrier and Organization representatives. (Emphasis added).


The Division Engineer responded the next day by advising that he had been on vacation and therefore delayed responding to the July 28, 1977 letter; that the claim was without merit, and that a hearing would nor be held if the employs still desired. rejected all appeals of the claim on the property.

        We shall sustain the claim on the basis of the patent violation of the

clear sad unambiguous language of Rule 91(b) (2), pursuant to whether Cleimeat
 wag entitled to a hearing on or before August 14, 1977. In so holding we du
 not reach sad express no opinion upon the merits. See Third Division Award No.
 221 , and o · awards cIEWthr s and- o c im ara sus .~ti.asd
 without reaching the merits of Part 1.

        FILINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record end all the evidence, finds sad holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively (terrier and Employes within the meaning of the Iiailxay Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193;

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

        That the Agreement wan violated.

                        Award Number 23536 Pace 3

                      Docket Number MW-22689

                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.


                            NATION& RAILROAD AnTI7STMExT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Ebtecutive secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois this 26th day of February 19e2.