Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST11,IEVT BOARD Award No. 7750
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7636
 2-SPT-YA-178



Part ies to Dispute:

D ispute: Claim of Employes:








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

 The carrier or carriers and. the employe or employe.9 involved -in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe Uithin the meaning of tae Railway Labor Act as approved Jun. 21, lg34.

 This Division of the Adjustz"errt Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

This is a most unusual and interesting case. It is undisputed that on October 20, 1876, Cla,i2nant reported to his assigned work location at test Cotton Receiving Yard Shop at 7:30 a.m. He drove his truck up to the :;hop, loaded his Personal tools acrd belongs.n-,-s, tur=ned in his keys to Carrier's shops, and verbally irrforrred his supervisor, in so many words that he quit. However, s-Teen the supervisor asked him to rnerroriali ze that ac-'U-ion in a written and signed resi`rrration, he declined to do so. His supervisor testified during the hearing that Claimant advised him he Txoul.d nail in his resignation or give him one at a later date. Claimant, on the other hand, denied that he said this ., and to the contrax~.v, testified -chat he rerdi.ly declined t0 sJ E;n such a note S.'1I1CE he :i'elt it i,,,as not necessary and 1'-'Pat- if he had intended to resign, he would have ,rri'cten the .resignation and also agreed to sign it. Two dayys later, Claimant sent a wiry. which opened by saying: "It is with reC;ret that I :rust infcm:~ you that _L hereby a-m reporting as being off sic?. after havi.:y most, recently suffe~!ed :;teat acrd now a continuing rnew'ta1. am.-,u1sh."
 Form 1 Award No. 7750
 Page 2 Docket No. 7636
 2-sFr-r4A-' 78

 Subsequent to these events, on November 5, 1976, Carrier directed Claimant to attend a formal hearing to determine the facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with his alleged absence frown duty since October 20, 1976, which might constitute a violation of parts of Rule 810 of the General. Rules and Regulations of Carrier. After the hearin:r, Carrier discharged Claimant, stating that 5_t found more than substantial evidence to sup:port its charge and that Claimant had not presented any medical evidence establishing that his alleged illness was severe enough to .preclude him from worming during the .period under charge.

 Carrier states that inasmuch as Claimant tendered a voluntary resi gnati.on, he has no rights of appeal and, even if he did, the hearing justified Carrier's tex~ninwtion of his services, the Union, on the other hand, states that Claimant had not resigned and that Carrier's discharge was unjust and without support. In deter.runing the issues., .,Te note first that a resignation, freely given, terminates the employment relationship - there have been several previous decisions of this Board directly on point. In weighing whether Claimant had any appeal rights under the a-reet:~,ent, we must first deterain:: whether he, in effect, had validly resigned. While the evidence at the hearn could lead to a hairline inference that Claimant had validly resigned, we think that his action of failure and. ref'asal to sign a resignation at t>_e tune was one indication that he was not sure that lie wanted to resi _gn - but only spoke strongly to that end. Coupled with that is th- fact that tvo days later, he wrote a telegrvjn to Carrier advising that he was x°e.porting off. sick. While the two events, in and of themselves, are not conclusive evidence that Claimant had not validly resigned (for, as cur Previous a.vrn.rd s have held, once a. resignation is tendered, it cannot, later, be rescinded), we thinly the fact that in this case, the Carrier proceeded to hold a disciplinary hearing on Claimant far events which occurred subsequent to the date of his a1ler;ed resignation served to recognize that, at least insofar as Carrier was concerned, Claimant still possibly had agreement rights and had not resigned. Further, Carrier conducted this hearing without any indication that it was doing so without .prejudice to the .position that Claimant had already resigned.

 Giver. all the foregoing, we conclude that Carrier, in reality, did not consider that Claimant's resignation vas final and valid. It should be .pointed out that our conchas~_on is based upon the unusual facts and circumstances of this case only.

 Turning to the discharge of Claimant, by letter dated November 26, 1976, ire axe led to conclude that more than substantial. evidence addmced at the hearing of 1kTovember 12, 1976 esta'Dl 1_shea C1a_1_zrant's respons_;.bili ty for the matter under charz_,e. Clai_.nant, a:~e;:tiry_ a_1.1n~:ss as the b~ss ~:or Ms absence., had the burden to n,x~ove that i-_- was too il!l to work. 11"o evidence to this effect, in the form of P-tedical reports or doctor's statements, ar~prE~r or were presented by Claimant, leaving hi,.-, Taitho;.rt a substantive defense. Iris previous record with Carrier, while :Lec.ica.tirzno discir-1ine, does indicate a propensity to stay with a jcb only a. sbott T)c-riod of ti:w - he
 seems to have a vary low tolerance level :eon worIa,Based on tile foregoing,
 Form l Award No- 7750
 Page 3 Docket No. 7636
 2-SPT-MA-' 78

 we will reinstate Claimant to his former position with seniority unimpaired, but without compensation for time lost, and in so doing, adtnon:i.sh him that if he wishes to r ci,a.in his employment relationship, he must rcali.ze, just as all of us in the work-a-day world, that certain work assignments are not necessarily desirable, but, they at least provide a. living and ,rust be performed without complaint, except as might be mourlted under the agreement grievance procedure.




Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      ..~.®~w -


                        __ ''`


          .A ~ .._a.,:


~,i"1~C'ety,I:ar1P. iil'aSCh Ad.r.,iinistrativ sistaut

 Datd at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November, 1978.