i







( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 · (Western Lines)

















Form 1 Award No. 9778
 Page 2 Docket No. 9530
 2-SP-MA-'84
The certified letter was to be delivered to the addressee only and was not picked up by Mr. Overstreet at the West Sacramento address. At the start of the September 9, 1980 hearing, the Acting Local Chairman sought a postponement of the formal hearing. After the Conducting Officer determined from the Acting Local Chairman that Mr. Overstreet had not contacted the Acting Local Chairman or other members of the Union seeking a postponement, the Conducting Officer determined to go ahead with the hearing. The General Foreman testified at the hearing that he was aware that Mr. Overstreet's father was i11 in the East. And the record disclosed that as of September 9, 1980 neither Mr. Overstreet nor any member of his family had contacted the Carrier to seek an extension of the leave which had expired after August 10, 1980. The Local Chairman had been on vacation from August 25, 1980 through August 29, 1980, and had been on a leave of absence from September 1, 1980 through September 12, 1980. The Local Chairman as set forth in his letter dated November 5, 1980, had taken an active part in the obtaining of Mr. Overstreet's leave and was aware of the reason for the leave. On September 17, 1980, Mr. Overstreet was dismissed from the service of the Carrier as a result of the September 9, 1980 formal hearing. On September 29, 1980, Mr. Overstreet reported for duty and was advised by the Carrier that he had been dismissed from service. On November 5, 1980 the Local Chairman sent a detailed letter to the Works Manager explaining how and why he had sought and obtained a leave of absence for Mr. Overstreet. He submitted copies of two different newspaper notices of the death in Joplin, Missouri of Mr. Overstreet's father on September 15, 1980, with burial on September 20, 1980.
The Carrier's letter of November 7, 1980 reveals that approximately three to four months prior to the incident in question Mr. Overstreet had requested a leave of absence of thirty days, which was granted; and he requested an additional thirty day leave of absence, which was granted by the Carrier by telephone.
We find no contractual violation in the Conducting Officer's refusal to grant a postponement of the formal hearing. Mr. Overstreet's leave of absence expired after August 10, 1980. He did not contact the Carrier to seek an extension of the leave at any time prior to the September 9, 1980 hearing; nor did he contact the Union to seek a postponement of the hearing. It is the employe's obligation to keep a current address with the Carrier. And there was no showing in the record that the Carrier knew Mr. Overstreet's temporary address was in Joplin, Missouri. The record indicates that the Carrier was informed that Mr. Overstreet's father was i11 out East. Under the circumstances of record, where the Carrier was informed that an employe's father was i11, and notice of

Form 1 Award No. 9778
 Page 3 Docket No. 9530
 2-SP-MA-'84
investigation was not picked up by the employe, and where the employe's record does not otherwise indicate circumstances that would tend to indicate that the employe had abandoned his employment, the Carrier must be reasonably open to consider mitigating facts and circumstances later brought to its attention concerning the employe's failure to protect his assignment. In the instant case the Local Chairman's Letter of November 5', 1980, along with the newspaper clipping of Mr. Overstreet's father's death on September 1.5, 1980 would indicate that mitigating circumstances existed for Mr. Overstreet's failure to return from his leave of absence. While Mr. Overstreet in fact had violated Rule 810 by his failure to contact the Carrier to obtain an extension of his leave of absence, after receipt of the Local Chairman's explanation and documentation, the Carrier's insistence thereafter that the discipline of dismissal was appropriate became untenable. The Carrier was entitled to discipline Mr. Overstreet for failure to contact the Carrier to seek an extension o f the leave of absence and the resultant failure to protect his assignment, even under the cirumstances o f his father being near death. The Union argues that Mr. Overstreet assumed that a leave extension was automatic under the circumstances he was in. However Mr. Overstreet demonstrated by his actions that he knew on a prior occasion several months before the August 1980 situation, that a request was necessary for an extension of a leave of absence; and that such a request could be made and granted by telephone. Certainly where the record does not show that the Claimant or the organization offered the Carrier an explanation and necessary documentation on the Claimant's situation prior to the November 5, 1980 letter from the Local Chairman, the Carrier had no basis to reconsider its discipline, and discipline up to that point in time, with a reasonable time to verify the documentation, cannot be challenged (that is, in this case up to November 7, 1980, when the Carrier responded to the November 5, 1980 letter). Some discipline beyond that period o f time would be appropriate. In any event discipline of more than a thirty day actual suspension for the period o f time after November 7, 1980 is excessive.
Mr. Overstreet should have been reinstated with all rights unimpaired as of December 7, 1980. Carrier agreed in conference on March 30, 1981 to return Claimant to service. Mr. Overstreet shall be made whole for his wage loss for the period of time from December 7, 1980 until the date he returned to service on April 6, 1981. The Carrier may deduct outside earnings from the amount owed Mr. Overstreet as hereafter qualified. If Mr. Overstreet maintained a second job prior to his dismissal by the Carrier, the parties shall establish the average number of hours per week worked at the second job for the four month period preceding Mr. Overstreet's 60 day leave of absence. The Carrier shall not deduct on a weekly basis for the period in question the earnings from the so established average number of hours per week worked at a second job, i f any, but ma q deduct on a weekly basis for the period in question the hours over and above the so established average number of hours per week worked at the second job. Periods o f less than a week shall beg prorated accordingly. If Mr. Overstreet found alternative employment during the period in question other than a previously established "second job", all wages earned at such alternative employment shall be deducted.

Form I Award No. 9778
 Page 4 Docket No. 9530
 2-SP-MA-'84
 A W A R D °



                            By Order of Second Division


ATTEST:
      Nancy J. v,%9- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 1st day of February, 1984