(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company

(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' current Agreement when it arbitrarily terminated seniority of G on September 13, 1971.

 (2) That Carrier now be required to reinstate Mr. J. P. Hogan, Jr. to the service of the Carrier with all his rights, including seniority, vacation, sick leave, Health and Welfare rights, unimpaired, and be reimbursed for all hospital, medical and surgical expenses incurred from September 13, 1971.

 OPINION OF BOARD: June 2, 1971 was the last day on which claimant performed
 service for Carrier. From June 3 to July 12, he was off
 due to a death in the family. Between July 12 and September 2, 1971, he marked
 up for work twice but on each occasion he marked off sick before reporting for
 work. On September 2, 1971, the Carrier gave notice to claimant that he must
 furnish medical proof of illness within ten days or forfeit his seniority under
 Rule 26-2(b) of the Agreement. Claimant failed to furnish the requested proof
 and also failed to give any reason for not doing so. On September 13, 1971 the
 Carrier terminated claimant's employment under the seniority forfeiture pro
 visions of Rule 26-2(b). Shortly afterwards, on September 18, 1971, the claimant
 was hospitalized for treatment of what appears to have been a serious illness.

 Petitioner contends that Carrier's action violated the Agreement in that Carrier should have conducted an investigation and hearing under Rule 23 (discipline) to determine whether there was a satisfactory reason for claimant's non-compliance with Rule 26-2(b). Petitioner also asserts that claimant was under a physical disability at the time in question, and for that reason, could not furnish the proof of illness. Carrier asserts that a Rule 23 investigation and hearing was not necessary because Rule 26-2(b) is self invoking and that a physical disability, on the part of claimant, was not shown to have existed at the pertinent time.



        "An employee absent from work for reasons stated in paragraph (a), i.e., sickness, disability, maternity leave, et cetera, will furnish to the supervising officer proof of right to continued absence within ten (10) days after having been absent ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, or give satisfactory reason for not doing so, and within ten (10) days following each ninety (90) day period thereafter, such proof to be in the form of letter or statement from a reputable doctor to the effect that the employ duties. The supervising officer may, however, request such proof at any time to be furnished within ten (10) days following receipt of such request. An emp letter or statement from a reputable doctor as provided above will forfeit all seniority rights and be considered out of the service." (Emphasis supplied)


The plain sense of the above rule is that when an employee fails to comply with the proof requirements of the first two sentences of the rule, the third and last sentence is automatically invoked and, thereunder such an employee "will forfeit all Further, from the record before us, there is no doubt that the above underlined text authorized Carrier's September 2, 1971 notice to claimant to furnish medi cal proof of illness within ten days; such proof was not furnished as required by the rule and, thereupon, the forfeiture provisions of the third sentence of the rule became applicable. Thus, we conclude that what occurred here cannot be regarded as having a disciplinary nature and, consequently, Carrier was under no obligation to conduct a Rule 23 investigation and hearing.

 As regards the issue of physical disability, we have no doubt that a physical disability would constitute a "satisfactory reason" under Rule 26-2(b) for not furnishing the required medical proof of illness. Therefore, if claimant was subject to a physical disability from September 2 through September 13, 1971 (respectively, the date of notice to provide proof and the deadline date for providing same), this w rule. The record contains two doctors' statements which show that claimant was unquestionably under a physical disability on September 18, 1971, but the statements do not render a serious category or otherwise touch upon the subject of his possible disability during the pertinent period. The record also shows that, prior to September 18, 1971, the claimant had had contact with a third physician who referred him to the hospital on September 18, 1971. The record contains no statement from this physician, however, and, in the absence of a statement from this physician, there is no reliable evidence tending to show claimant was subject to a physical disability prior to his a circumstances, and on the whole record, we must conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establ period, September 2-13, 1971.

      In view of the foregoing we shall dismiss the claim.

                  Award Humber 19806 page

                Docket Number CL-19969


        FINDIMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and F1mployes 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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST..EhT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive e Secr-era-TF

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of Jun. 1973.