Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26823
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-26809
 88-3-86-3-75
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when, on August 6, 1984, its Operations Supervisor issued blanket order that regular Crew Clerks and Master Roster No. 3 Extra Board Clerks must furnish doctor's certificate when laying off due to sickness.

 2. Carrier's action is in violation of the Clerks' Agreement, expressly Rules 33 (b) and 51 contained therein.

 3. Carrier shall now be required to rescind its blanket order instructions which apply only to a small number of its clerical employes."

 FINDINGS:

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On August 4, 1984, the Carrier's Operations Supervisor issued the following notice:


Form 1 Award No. 26823
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-26809
 88-3-86-3-75
 only be OK if there is an employee available to work.
 Advance lay offs will be approved on 1st come basis
 depending on the needs of the Carrier.
 Also, in addition to current procedures relative
 to the need of a doctors slip when laying off sick,
 any regular Crew Clerk that has a combination of lay
 offs and sick days exceeding three (3) days in a thirty
 (30) calendar day period (three (3) days in twenty-two
 (22) work opportunities for MR-3 Extra Board), they
 must bring satisfactory evidence as to sickness, prefer
 ably in the form of a certificate from a reputable physi
 cian

 According to the Organization, this notice was directed at a specific group of employees, to the exclusion of other groups. The Organization argues that the strict requirements of the notice, particularly as to requiring the furnishing of "satisfactory evidence" of sickness absences, are in violation of Rule 51, Sick Leave.

 Rules 51 provides for pay "for time absent because of bona fide case of sickness" up to ten days a year. Section (c), however, provides as follows:

The organization argues that the rigid requirements of the August 6, 1984, notice is in conflict with the provision of Rule 51(c) which requires evidence of illness only "in case of doubt." As contended by the Organization, this implies that sic
The Board finds merit in the Organization's argument. While Rule 51(c) provides the Carrier with the means to check on sickness absence as required, it also clearly mandates against any fixed rule applicable in all circumstances.

 To similar effect, in considering similar broad-based notices to employees, are Second Division Award Nos. 8251 and 9711.

 In its conclusion here, the Board does not dispute the Carrier's right to question the propriety of absence for alleged sickness. Such, however, must necessarily be Form 1 Award No. 26823
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-26809
 88-3-86-3-75






Attest:
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.