Dispute: Claim of Employes:

The Claimant herein contends that his dismissal from the Respondent's employ was improper. Claimant (believes that he) was physically and mentally incapable of complying with the company policy with respect to an extension of hi.; leave of absence. The record reflects such testimony being adduced at earlier hearings, however, Respondent has chosen to disregard the physical impossibility of compliance with company policy. Claimant contends that upon a complete review of all circumstances surrounding this dispute, a decision favorable to the Claimant will be rendered.

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 employes 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant entered Carrier's service on September 5, 1978, as a car carpenter. Beginning on July 14, 1979, Claimant was on a proper leave of absence which continued, with extensions, until June 7, 1980.

On May 30, 1980, Claimant was admitted to Central Community Hospital and underwent an emergency appendectomy. After a normal recovery, Claimant was discharged from the hospital on June 14, 1980.

By a letter dated June 17, 1980, Claimant was instructed to attend a hearing on his failure to return to work or to renew his leave of absence. At the hearing, Claimant frankly admitted his failure in this regard. Effective July 9, 1980, Claimant was dismissed.

Subsequently, this matter was handled as a request for leniency. As was stated in Second Division Award 7389 (Zumas):

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division