(Carlos Sandoval PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





In response to Claimant's request for 90-day leave after furlough, Carrier pointed to exigencies of the service dictating refusal because he could not be spared from the work force. No Rule called to our attention is violated. Rather, Rule 29 entitled "LEAVE OF ABSENCE", Paragraph (d) is in point, expressly making the grant of the employes' leave-taking conditional upon "when they can be spared."

Now we turn to the second Claim. Rule 29(a) explicitly provides that the ". . . (e)mploye remaining away from service except in cases of accident or sickness without proper leave of absence will forfeit his seniority." Claimant made his election to remain away from service on and after August 15, 1984; when he voluntarily did so it was automatically at the expense of termination and forfeiture of his seniority.







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


Award Number 26015 Page 2
Docket Number MS-26433

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest. 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division

Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1986.