Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27494
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27158
 88-3-86-3-224
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Eastern Lines):

 Claim on behalf of P. Gotthardt and R. L. Polasek for violation of Article VIII, Rule 800, Section (b) of the Signalmen's Agreement when Carrier Officer refused to allow those employees off work to perform union work and thereby interferred (sic) with their rights to represent employees under the Brotherhood's Agreement. Carrier file 31-45-A."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The Claimants herein are Signalmen and serve respectively as Local President/Local Chairman and Trustee of the Organization's Local Lodge. Both Claimants had been granted permission to be absent to attend a Local Lodge meeting on January 18, 1987.

 On January 16, 1987, the Claimants sought permission to be absent also for half-days on January 17 "for the expressed purpose of doing Union business." (The Organization states that the purpose was to participate in an annual financial audit of the Local Lodge books.) Permission for these half-day absences was denied.

 The Organization argues that such denial was in violation of Rule 800 (b), as well as the Railway Labor Act and seeks from the Board a "cease and desist" order, a letter from the Carrier stating the "Carrier's future intention" and a letter of ap Form 1 Award No. 27494
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27158
 88-3-86-3-224


















an alleged rule violation and lacks jurisdiction to consider purported vio
 lations of the Railway Labor Act. As argued by the Organization, Rule 800(b)
 does mandate that organization representatives "will be granted necessary
 leave of absence" (emphasis added). This does not permit Carrier discretion.
 However, the mandate in Rule 800(b) is qualified by the phrase "for the pur
 pose of handling grievances between employees and the railroad." This phrase
 must not be misconstrued as applicable to conferences between Organization
 representatives and Carrier officials, since Rule 800(d) addresses such con
 ferences.

 It must be concluded, therefore, that Rule 800(b) mandates a leave of absence "for the purpose of handling grievances" apart from conferences between Carrier officials an for January 17 was not in relation to handling grievances. Thus, no rule violation may be found.

 From the record, however, it is clear that the parties involved here, as generally true in such relationships, do recognize the need for representatives to absent themsel offices. This, however, is a matter of mutual understanding which must consider the underlying right instance, there was an obvious conflict between representational duties, Carrier work requirements, can only suggest (but not require) that the parties review the subject to establish guidelines. As stated above, however, no violation of Rule 800 (b) is found.
 Form 1 Award No. 27494
 Page 3 Docket No. SO-27158
 88-3-86-3-224




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      N~ J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of September 1988.