PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it improperly closed the service record of Section Laborer T. D. Montoya (System File D-14-82/MW21-82).

(2) The Agreement was also violated when the Carrier failed to schedule and hold an investigation which was timely and properly requested in conformance with Appendix '0'.

(3) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, Claimant T. D. Montoya shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered including overtime pay."

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, Mr. Thomas D. Montoya, was employed by the
Carrier as a Section Laborer at Salt Lake, Utah. The Carrier's evidence shows that Mr. Montoya telephoned his foreman, Mr. A. Archuleta on May 25, 1982, wherein he informed him that he had been released by his physician to return to work, and that he would report to work on May 26, 1982. On June 9, 1982, Mr. Montoya was dropped from the Carrier's service under Appendix "0" of the Agreement because of his failure to report for duty for ten working days. Mr. Montoya reported for work on June 11, 1982, offering's medical release, an longer an employee of the Carrier. By letter dated June 25, 1982, the General Chairman was notified that Mr. Montoya was dropped on account of failure to report to service. On July 6, 1982, the Organization requested a formal investigation under Appendix








                        Docket Number MW-25622


        Signed at Denver, Colorado, the 12th day of April, 1972." (Emphasis added.)


Under Appendix "0" Mr. Montoya had a right to make a written request to the proper Carrier officer for a formal investigation within thirty calendar days from the first day of his unauthorized absence. Mr. Montoya was well aware of the Carrier's position that he had been absent from his assignment, without permission, for the ten working days following his May 25, 1982, phone conversation with Foreman Archuleta. Yet he did not timely request such an investigation.

We have considered the Organization's contention that Rule 25(d) was controlling. However, after May 25, 1982, when Mr. Montoya notified the Carrier that his doctor had released him to return to work on May 26, 1982, Rule 25(d) was no longer controlling. We have considered all evidence of record properly before this Board, and we do not find any violation of the Agreement by the Carrier.

        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.


                          AWARD


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1986.