Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLJSTrMENT BOARD Award No.
7927
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7830
2-LAN-FO-
t
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George E. Larney when award eras rendered,
( System Federation No.
91,
Railway Employes'
. ( Department' A.
r.
of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
Dilute: Claim of E:=loyes:
1. That under the Current and Controlling Agreement, Service Attendant;
B. L. Foley was unjustly disx:ui;.;sed frara the service of the LF~T
Railroad Company on January
3, 1977,
after a fom.al investigation
was held. in the office of ZeLr. R. L. Spain, Staff Assistant to
Manager an Dec.
9, 1976.
2, That accordingly, B. L. Foley, Service Attendant, be restored to
his regzzl.ar assignment at South Louisville Shops with x,11 seniority
rights un=~:,pa9.red, vacation, Health and Welfare, hospital and life
insurance be paid and compensated for all lost timer effective
Jan. T+,
197'x.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidences finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the en?ploye or ersployes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and ~-,nauloye within tile meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved tune 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment board has jurisdiction ever the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant
was dismissed from service on januaxy
3, 1977
following a
formal hearing held an December
9, 1976.
Claimant was chq"rged with being absent frcrn duty without permission from
proper authority during the following three time intervals: October 7.2,
3.976
through October
17, 1976;
October 26,
176
through Nove.~rber Z0,
1976;
and November
13, 176
through Decerit7er 1,
1976,
on which date Carrier
notified Claimant by certified letter of the charge against him and of the
investigatory hearing scheduled for December
g, 1976.
As the Claimant dial
not report to work after I)ecerber 1,
1976
nor prior to the 12earin~ date, the
latter vide interval was modified at the hearing extending the time period to
include the date of Decen'ber
9, 1976,
e
Form 1 Award No.
7927
Page 2 Docket No,
7330
2-r~:N-FO-'
79
The Organization contends that Claimant complied with Rule 22 of the
Current Controlling Agreement the subject of which deals with Absence
Account Sickness and reads as follows:
"An employee detained from work account of sickness ox' other
good cause shall notify his foreman as early as possible."
The Board notes from the record that notification of the first absence
was given on October 21,
1976,
a full ten days after the Claimant's last full
day worked (October 11,
1976),
and treat of those ten intervening days only
four were covered by a medical excuse. The second notification occurred
twenty days following the first notification when, on Noven-bex' 10,
1876,
the
Claimant physically. presented himself at his work station with a note from
his personal physician stating the Claimant had had the flu and had been
under physician's care since October
18, 1976
and was ready to return to
work on October 25,
1876.
The Board notes teat sixteen days had elapsed
between the time Claimant had been declared able to return to work by his
own, personal physician and the date Clairiant reported to work. Claimant then
notified his section manager by telephone on both ~Hovenber 11 and PToval:ibex· Il?,
1976
regarding his being detained from work. Therefore, between Claimant's
last official. notification on aovember 1.2,
1876
and the date Cla.-~:nant
presented himself at the scheduled hearing on DeceTnber
g, 1876,
another
twenty-seven days had elapsed.
Based on the facts set forth above, the Board believes that to accept
the view Cla:iznant complied with Rule 22 of the Controlling Agreement, would
be to stretch beyond reason the meaning and intent of the Rule. The Board
notes that the Claimant himself does riot deny but, in fact, admits that he did
not have permission to be off of work
daring
the aforementioned time periods
and that he was not sick for the enter a time he was absent from work. It is
the observation of this Board that the investigatory hearing of December
g,
1976,
was both fair and im-
partial and that the evidence derived from the
hearing eras substantial and convincing enough so as to render a denial of
the :instant claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM-F-TIT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
______
By ~~ ' `~
~-f`''
sa Brasch - Ad:ninisi:,rative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May,
lg7g.
T ,.~