(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation ((Former Lehigh Valley Railroad Company)

(a) Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1955, particularly Role 60 thereof, when it refused to compensate Clerk Walter L. Boyle for the date of Saturday, December 21, 1974, when he was absent due to personal illness.

 (b) Carrier now be required to allow Clerk Walter L. Boyle one minimum date at the applicable pro-rata rate of his assigned position for the date of December 21, 1974.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant did not report for work on December 21, 1974,
 and subsequently filed claim for one day's pay for his
 absence, which he stated was due to illness, under the terms of Rule 60
 which provides as follows:









        "(c) Employes with five years and more service - maximum of twelve and one-half (12 1/2) working days in any calendar year.


        (d) Employes absent on account of death in family ·· maximum of three working days; same to be included in sick allowance granted for length of service.


          NOTE: Maximum allowance referred to in the above paragraph applies to immediate family only.


        (e) The employing officer must be satisfied that the sickness was bonafide. Satisfactory evidence as to sickness in the form of a certificate from a reputable physician may be required in case of absence exceeding4 days.


        (f) Requests for allowances under the provisions of this rule shall be presented by the employes to the Management with copy to the Representative."


The Trainmaster, Claimant's supervisor, denied the sick leave pay in a letter dated December 24, 1976, stating:

        "Referring to your request for one (1) day sick allowance December 21st, due to intestinal virus.


        Your claim for one (1) day sick allowance, December 21st, is denied, due to the fact that you have set a precedent claims sick allowance the day regular relief days."


The record shows that the Claimant was on his relief days on the two days preceding December 21, 1974. The record also shows that on two previous instances in 1974, the Claimant had requested and received sick leave pay on a day o days.
                      Award Number 22035 page 3

                      Docket Number CL-21793


Rile 60 provides that "satisfactory evidence" from a physician "'may be required" by the Carrier in cases of absence exceeding four days. The rule does not, however, simply grant employes the right to claim and receive sick leave for absence of four days or less on the mere statement of illness. The Rae includes the limitation that, "the emplo the Carrier may either request some type of verification of shortte= illness absence (which might in with the employe); and it could also include independent investigation by the Carrier;) But these co here.. 'In this instance, the Carrier's supervisor simply denied the claim for sick leave based on what he considered a "precedent." This same argument was followed in subsequent denials of the claim through the appeal procedure. There is no record that the Carrier ever requested verification of the reason of absence in any way. The "precedent" apparently was enough for the Carrier.

 It is not enough for the Board. Two previous occurrences of illness of one or two days' duration ove a year, both of which were immediately following relief days, could well be coincidence. Given a five-day work week with two relief days, there is a 40 per cent mathematical possibility that any sick day will occur contiguous with a relief day. The Carrier's suspicion may have been aroused by this 40 per cent possibility occurring three times consecutively. But this at most could lead to investigation -not a presumption that a "precede
Clearly, Rble 60 does not permit whimsical claims for sick leave at any time. Equally clearly, the Rile provides that claim for sick leave of four days or less may not be denied on the "hunch" of the Carrier that something is amiss. In this instance, the reason (the only reason) given for denial of sick leave pay was insubstantial.

 Award No. 2o4o6 (Blackwell) is not helpful here. In that case, the Agreement language as to a physician's statement carries with it no limitation of illness of more than four days. Further, the Claimant in that case had used her maxi mum sick leave allowance in each of the previous seven years.
                  Award Number 22035 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-21793


Award No. 20758 (Eischen), also relied upon by the Carrier in its argument, deals with an agreement with quite different requirements in its sick leave quite different circumstances as to the employe's absence.

          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 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.


                        A W A R D .


          Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL FAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third-


ATTEST :- ~;-`,',,
          Executive Secretary


                                            ~EER ~_IQ Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1978.