PARTIES':: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Docket Nb. 5
 TO
 DISPUTES. Chicago and North Western Transportation Company





FINDINGS:

 The Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively employes and Carrier within:-the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Bbard has jurisdiction over tho dispute herein.

 The record shows that the claimant was-removed from the seniority roster- as a Bridge and Building Carpenter,- on August 26, 1981, for allegedly being absent from work since April 24, 1981, without a proper~leave of absence.

 After claimant was removedfrom the seniority roster, representatives of the Organization requested a hearing under Rule 20 of the applicable Agreement. The request was granted'and the hearing-xas held on October 14, 1981. A transcript of the hearing, which was rather lengthy, has been made a part of the record. Claimant was present throughout the hearing and was represented by Kathy Oates, an attorney. The General Chairman of the Organization was also present.

 In the hearing held on October 14, 1981, it was developed that on August 26, 1981, Carrier's Assistant Division ManagerEngineering, had notified claimant on August-26, 1981:




' 5a /- 9;1 v
                                                  Docket No. 5

                                                  Page 2


        "As you have failed to comply with provisions of the-: current .agreement betweenrthe Transportation Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees-; Rule 54, which requires that employees must have propen'leave of absence' for absences of 30 or more calendar days; it is necessary for me to consider you as having forfeited your seniority, and your name is being deleted from-the Twin Cities Division Seniority Roster.


                                Yours truly,


                              /s/ N. H. Clark

                  Ass't. Division Manager-Engineering."


Rule 54 of the applicable collective bargaining Agreement, referred to in the letter of August 26, 1981, reads in part::

        "An employe desiring to remain away from service must obtain permission from his Supervising officer: All authorized absences of thirty (30) calendar days or more will be in writing and made a matter of record on regularly prescribed form and copy of-same will be furnished employe."


The Board has carefully reviewed the.tra:nscript of the hearing and the entire record in the dispute. The hearing contains-substantial evidence that between April 27, 1981, and August 26, 1981, claimant was advised by, various employes and' off iolals of the Carri6r on numerous occasions of the necessity of claimant completing and returning "Leave of Absence" forms contemplated by that portion of Rule 54 quoted above. There is evidence that.one set of leave of absence papers was received in the office of Assistant Vice President and Division Manager (with no evidence as to the date of such receipt), but the papers were returned to the claimant due to incomplete information. There is no record of receipt of completed forms until such papers were received from claimant dated August 28, 1981. two days after his termination.

 It is the conclusion of the Board; after carefully consider= ins the competing arguments, that the Carrier has properly applied the7collective bargaining-Agreement as written. As had been frequently stated, it is not the function of a Board of this nature to do equity, but to apply the Agreement as written. Further; we have no authority to decide any issues concerning.State or Federal laws or Constitutional provisions.

                      A W A H D"


        Claim denied.

.513 4 9~
 ' Award No.
 Docket No.
 Page 3.
 p~, Chairman, Neutral Member

 Carr r Membea 'labor Memb rr

 ITatet TLev-` ZU, g