Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Portland Terminal Railroad Company
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 (GL-8177) that:
 1. Carrier violated the provisions of the Schedule Agreement
 between the parties when it failed to compensate Ms. V. McKechnie,
 Relief Clerk, Portland Oregon, sick leave allowance for January 9 and 10,
 1975.
 2. Carrier shall now compensate Ms. V. McKechnie two days'
 sick leave allowance for January 9 and 10, 1975.
 OPINION OF BOARD: At the outset, Carrier raises the argument that
 this dispute should properly be referred to
 Special Board of Adjustment 605 since it involves the application of
 the February 7, 1965 Agreement. An examination of the record of this
 dispute makes it evident to us that this claim does not turn upon the
 application of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, but rather relates
 directly to the provisions of the schedule agreement. Even though
 Claimant was a protected employe at the time the claim arose, and was
 receiving compensation at her protected rate under the February 7, 1965
 Agreement, the dispute herein concerns the application of the sick
 leave allowance of Rule 48 of the parties' agreement and is properly
 before this Board. See Award 18385 and Awards 105 and 314 of Special
 Board of Adjustment 605.
 With respect to the merits, Claimant had been displaced from
 her regular assignment December 19, 1974. Two days later she exercised
 her seniority and displaced a junior employe and began qualifying on
 Relief Position No. 521; she was paid her protected rate during this ·°
 period. On January 9th and 10th, 1975, two of the assigned workdays of
 Position 521, she reported off sick and claimed sick pay under the
 provision of Rule 48 of the applicable agreement. That rule provides:




Rule 48:

 (a) Employes who on January lst of each year have been in service one year or more will be allowed Sick Leave with pay as follows:





(b) Employes who are off account sickness in excess of the specified allowance in any year, will be given additional time off with pay to the extent of their unused sick leave allowance in the previous year.

 (c) The employing officer must be satisfied that the illness is bona fide. Satisfactory evidence in the form of a certificate from a reputable physician, preferably a Company physician, will be required in case of doubt. The Local and General Chairman will cooperate with the Official when doubt exists.

 (d) In the application of this rule, it is understood that where there is no necessity for a position to be kept up daily, it may be blanked, or the duties assigned to the remaining employes in the department. No overtime, Sunday, or holiday work will be required of the remaining employes by reason of the granting of the sick leave.

 (e) The above limits of sick leave may be extended in individual meritorious cases, but such extensions will only be made by agreement between the representatives of the Carrier and of the employe."

 Carrier denied claimant's sick claim based on the following:

 "The two days sick leave claimed during your student period was at a time when you were being paid as a student to learn new work in connection with the February, 1965, Clerks Agreement. This agreement has


"no provision for compensation at times other than
 when you are able to work, and claims for sick leave
 are therefore excluded under the concept of the
 Agreement."
 Under all the circumstances herein, we find that Carrier's
 denial of sick leave payment, on the basis stated above, was improper.
 Sick leave is paid or not paid under the terms and provisions of the 3
 sick leave rule of the Agreement. The compensation and other provisions
 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement are not controlling. Rule 48 does
 not bar sick leave payments when an employe is receiving compensation
 as a protected employe nor does it bar payments when an employe is
 breaking in on a job under the provisions of Rule 8. For those reasons
 the Claim must be sustained.
 Some eleven months after the claim had been initiated, Carrier
 raised an additional defense with respect to paragraph (c) of Rule 48
 concerning a certificate from a reputable physician attesting to the
 bona fide illness of Claimant. Proof of illness and satisfactory
 evidence are proper considerations when doubt exists over eligibility
 for sick pay. However, questions arising under the application of
 Rule 48 (c) must be timely raised. Demanding the evidence specified
 in the rule for the first time eleven months after the claim for sick
 benefits has been filed seems quite tardy, particularly since Carrier's
 original position was not that it doubted that Claimant was sick but
 that it questioned her entitlement to the benefit under the provisions
 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
 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 violated.
                    Award Number 21979 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-21618

                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~l,.' 141, &dg:~ge
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1978.

    /,


i . .i. r
 f p,pR?9i9~
 P