Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLJSTrMENT BOARD Award No. 7927
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7830
2-LAN-FO- t 79





Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)

( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

Dilute: Claim of E:=loyes:









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.



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.






                          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 ,.~