PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "I have enclosed eight (8) copies of Claim for one (1)

Upon returning from five (5) weeks Vacation, (November 1, 1980 thru December 7, 1980 Inc.) I requested two personal leave days December 26th and December 29th, 1980. 1 was not notified until December 23rd, by my Supervisor Mr. D. D. Childress, Manager, Engineering & Maintenance, that I would only be allowed December 26, 1980.
I requested the days, per my letter of December 8th, 1980 and was not notified until December 23 that I could only have one day off. I feel that he should have given me his denial prior to the 23rd, so that I could have rescheduled the time off.·
OPINION OF BOARD: The grievant protests the denial of her request for a

On December 8, 1980, the grievant requested two personal leave days (in lieu of sick leave) for December 26 and 29, 1980. On December 23, she was allowed the first day; the second day was denied upon the grievant's statement that she would be unable to complete her overdue assigned monthly reports by the end of the year.
The grievant asserts that the notice of denial was given too late to permit her to reschedule the time off.
The Carrier responds that it acted in accordance with its authority under the National Agreement.
Article IX, Section 2, of the Agreement provides that two days of personal leave in lieu of sick leave may be taken during each year "only when consistent with the requirements of the Carrier's service". In view of the grievant's uncompleted year-end work, the Carrier says, a personal leave day on December 29 was not consistent with the requirements of its service.
On full analysis of the record, including the Agreement and the January 13, 1979, letter of clarification, the Board concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the Carrier's denial of the personal leave day for reasons of the requirements of the service. The late date of the grievant's request and the unfinished state of her periodic reports afford a reasonable basis for the Carrier's judgment.
            Award Number 24578 Page 2



We find no basis in the record to support the grievant's complaint that there was undue delay in giving her notice of the denial or that she was actually prejudiced by the notice date.
Accordingly, we must confirm the Carrier's judgment. The grievance will be denied.
        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: _ _
 Nancy J er - Executive Secretary
        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day pf December 1983.


                                      ~yCEIVi~.,.


                                    C

                                    \ /r..~ Gi.W fJ


                                                          l


                                l