(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of B. B. Coben for one day's wages as sick pay for November 29, 1971.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The instant claim seeks payment for one day's wages
 under an Agreement dated March 15, 1968, the so-called "Sick Leave Agreement" between Carrier and the Organization. That Agreement reads, in part pertinent


The facts of the dispute are not contested. Claimant Bruce B. Coben, Signalman was scheduled to report for duty at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, November 29, 1971 at Jamaica, New York. At approximately 6:00 a.m. Claimant telephoned Carrier from Blakeslee, Pennsylvania a point some 140 miles from Jamaica and reported that he was ill and could not report for work that day. Claimant subsequently filed a formal claim for sick pay for that day, which Carrier denied on December 7, 1971 for "failure to comply with Section 10 of the current Sick Benefit Agreement."

 The Organization contends that Carrier's denial violates the Agreement and that Claimant is not required to furnish proof other than his personal statement for one day's sick leave. Carrier insists that the employee has the burden of pro the particular circumstances of this case, including the logistics and Claimant's sick leave use record, that burden is not met by Claimant's unsupported personal statemen


Review of the record shows that language identical to that
 quoted supra was the crux of Award No. 8 of Special Board of Adjust-
 ment No. 744 in a dispute between this Carrier and another Organization
 in 1971. The issue presented in that case was framed as follows:

We find the principles enunciated in that unanimous Opinion and Award to be applicable herein and quote therefrom as follows:







                        Docket Number SG-20407


                "This is not to say that the Carrier may indiscriminately call for medical proof. It must have a reasonable basis for making such request - or for denying a sick leave allowance in the absence of the requested proof. Section 14, additionally, provides the avenue for disciplining an employe who submits a fraudulent claim or otherwise violates the rules. Each case, of course, will have to be treated individually, and, the reasonablenebs of Management's determinati that medical proof be submitted, would be subject to challenge in the grievance procedure. What we hold here, simply, is that the Carrier is not barred, under certain circumstances, from requesting medical proof of claimed illness of one or two days.


                              AWARD


                      1. For the purpose of applying the second sentence of Section 10 of the Aguust 15, 1968 Sick Leave Agreement, a Friday-Monday absence shall be deemed an absence of more than two consecutive days, as shall an absence on both the day before and the day after a holiday. Single day absences on Monday, on Friday, on the day before or on the day after a holiday, cannot be used to establish the existence of an absence of more than two consecutive days.


                      2. The Carrier is not barred, under certain circumstances, from requesting medical proof covering an absence of less than three consecutive days, in accordance with the general findings set


        We concur that Carrier is not barred under certain circumstances from requesting medical proof covering an absence of less than two days under the Signalmen's Agreement here under construction. Carrier must have a reasonable basis for making such a request - or for denying a sick leave allowance in the absence of requested proof. Each case must be treated individually and stand or fal


          With the foregoing principles in mind we have reviewed carefully the facts herein. Claimant was 140 miles away from his assignment when he called in two hours before starting time on a Monday. Moreover Claimant's record of sick leave use shows that, with relief days Saturday and Sunday, one-third of his illnesses have occurred on a Monday. The latter point may not be sufficient standing alone but when coupled with the logistics and timing of the sick leave call this particular case becomes one in which Carrier has a reasonable bas absence. This does not mean Claimant was filing a false claim but rather


          that in the facts of this case he had the burden of providing the requested proof and his failure to do so is fatal to his claim.


I
                Award Number 20758 Page 4

                Docket Number SG-20407


        FINDINGS: 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 Employes 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST:- 12e t
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1975.