THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant C. E. Money, regularly assigned Check Clerk, Position No. A-211, Huntington, West Virginia, on October 5, 1954 asked Warehouse Foreman Curry for permission to leave work early to keep an appointment at his dentist's office for emergency dental work, he having broken off a portion of a tooth. Mr. Curry replied that Agent Mr. Filkins didn't want any employe off duty for even ten minutes. Whereupon, Claimant Mr. Money, made the appointment for 8:00 A. M., October 6, 1954. (Employes' Exhibit "B") Claimant Money being unable to work on October 6, 1954, his position was filled by an extra employe.
Claim was filed by Claimant Money for pay for October 6, 1954 under the Sick Leave Rule. Conference was held on December 30 and the Railway stated as one of the facts that had been developed: "Clerk Money asked permission to be off 30 minutes to an hour early on October 5 for the purpose of going to the Dentist, however, permission was not granted." (Employes'
bounds. The evidence shows that it was Money, and not the Carrier, who moved not in keeping with the covenants of Rule 60 and its collateral memorandum agreement, and the claim should be denied in its entirety.
All data contained in this submission have been discussed in conference with the Employe representatives.
OPINION OF BOARD: From the evidence presented in the claim the Board finds that when the claimant was off duty the entire day of October 6, 1954 he was not off duty due to personal illness, but was off duty to keep a dental appointment that was not of an emergency nature. Section (b) of subsection 5 of rule 60 of Clerks Agreement No. 7 does not contemplate payment for sick leave, account personal illness when an employe takes time off duty to keep a dental appointment which is not of an emergency nature.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and