Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8877
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8573
 2-SCI-EW-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Francis X. Quinn when award was rendered.
 international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 Dispute : Claim of Employes:
 1. That Hie Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated the current working
 agreement, in particular Rules 15, 19 and 32 and the Mediation Agreement
 Case A-9106 effective February 1, 1973, when upgraded Electrician
 Apprentice L. 0. Barber was unjustly withheld from service and disciplined
 beginning May 18, L977 and extending through August 12, 1977, both dates
 inclusive, as result of investigation held on June 23 and 24, 1977.
 2. That, accordingly, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered
 to compensate upgraded Electrician Apprentice L. 0. Barber in the amount
 of eight (8) hours per day at the punitive rate of mechanics' pay for
 the period covering May 18, 1977 through August 12, 1977, a total of
 sixty-three (63) days.

 F lnd.ingg:

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

 'L'he carrier or carriers and the employe or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.

The evidence of record in this dispute clearly establishes that Claimant was guilty of being absent from his assignment without permission during almost the entire period from July 13, 1975 until May 18, 1977.

 When Claimant presented himself for return to duty on May 18, 1977, after being off duty for almost 2 years, he submitted the following: 1) a report from Dr. Calhoun dated May 17, 1977 stating that Claimant had been suffering from acute anxiety from July 10, 1975 and that he had been hospitalized for an unstated period of time; the report also stated that a letter was attached thereto, but when Claimant presented the form, no such letter was attached, and 2) a letter from Dr. Hicks dated May 9, 1977 stating that the last time he had seen Claimant was March, 1976, over e. year earlier, and that Claimant's problem had stemmed from a series of domestic difficulties.

 Due to the sketchy nature of the reports, the Carrier's Chief Medical Officer requested that more detailed information be furnished concerning Claimant's protracted absence. The only other information that was forthcoming was a hospital report

Form 1 Award No. W`·77
 Page 2 Docket No. 8573
 2-SCL-EW-'82

 sent on two different occasions, May 23 and .June 6, 1977, stating thereon that Claimant had been hospitalized from July 20, 1975 until August 2, 1975 with a final diagnosis of pancreatitis and anxiety. In addition, in that portion of the form captioned "DEGREE OF DISABILITY", the following was set forth:

While this report gave details of Claimant's illness during his 13-day hospital stay in 1975, it shed no light whatsoever in explaining the reason for Claimant's continued absence after a two-week convalescence period.

 Carrier again advised Claimant that additional medical information was necessary before Claimant could be returned to work, but no information has been offered which can effectively explain medically why Claimant was absent during the period considered herein.

 During the handling of this case, the Employees have charged that the Carrier had violated Item 2 of the Mediation Agreement, Case A-9106, inasmuch that Carrier did not arrange for a physical examination for Claimant within "a reasonable period." Such a contention fails on two grounds.

Item 1 of the Agreement which requires that when an employee returns from an illness _

 or off-duty injury, he will furnish a report which includes a "brief history of
 illness or injury, diagnosis, duration of care, treatment and prognosis". Absent
 Claimant's fulfilling the conditions set for~:h in Item 1, the Carrier could not
 determine if a physical examination was necessary as provided for in Item 2 of the
 Mediation Agreement.

 Secondly, the question of Claimant's physical condition on May 18, 1977, is not the central issue here in dispute. Rather, ~;laimant was investigated for unauthorized absences from July 13, 1975 until May 19, 1917. Based on the medical information supplied by Claimant and his physicians, or better stated the lack of same, the Carrier rightfully determined that during such period there was no sound medical basis for Claimant's absence and, therefore, properly found Claimant guilty as charged and assessed commensurate discipline in connection therewith.

 The Employees have also taken the position that the Carrier violated 1tule 19 of the controlling Agreement which states that an employee who is unavoidably kept from work will not be discriminated against and that if such employ~·.e Is sick he shall notify his foreman. The record indicates that it was the Claimant 'Who failed to reasonably demonstrate that he was sick during the entire period in question or that he was unavoidably detained from work. The only time that the Carrier had been notified of Claimant's illness was on July 12, 1975 when Claimant's brother allegedly called the Carrier and advised that Claimant "would not report for work because he was sick". This one telephone call made in July, 1975, cannot serve to fulfill the Claimant's obligation to keep the Carrier informed regarding a two-year absence from his assignment. The following statement by Referee Marx in Award 7748 is germane to this dipute:

 r
 Form 1 - Award No. 8877
 Page 3 Docket No. 8573
 2-SCL-EW-'82.
 "* The provisions of Rule 22, whatever other purposes they may
 serve, .rre not a defense against chronic absenteeism. As held
 many times before the Board, die employer has a right to expect
 reKular(.ty in attendance. There are no mitigating factors in
 than dispute to modify this general principal."

 'fhe Union has furnished no evidence or proof that there has been a violation of. any rule in the A:;reement. Repeatedly, all Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have held that, before a claim can be sustained, a rule violation must be proven, and that the "burden of proof" rests with the petitioner.

 In this regm o1,.Second Division Award 5526 held: "Mere allegations without proof are of no probative value." Likewise, Second Division Award 6054 held: "We find no probative evidence to support the claim. This Board has held on many occasions that the burden of proving claim is on the claimant."







We conclude that the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation and had every opportunity to explain the reasons for his protracted absence. This; he failed to satisfactorily do. Accordingly, we must deny the claim.

    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
      oi/emarie Branch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of January, 1982.