Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26824
THIRD
DIVISION
Docket No. CL-26805
88-3-86-3-61
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
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10076) that:
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it required
Clerk J. P. Hanna to secure doctor's certificate for date of October 21, 1984.
2. Carrier's action is in violation of Rule 51 of the Agreement
between the parties.
3. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant J. P. Hanna
eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate of $109.37, representing sick pay for
October 21, 1984."
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant herein called in and laid off sick at 4:53 a.m., October 21,
1984, for a call he had accepted which would have commenced at 7 a.m. He was
advised that a doctor's note would be required to substantiate any payment of
sick pay benefits. When the Claimant failed to provide such a note, he was
denied sick pay benefits, and this claim resulted.
The Organization argues that the demand for a doctor's note was
improper, since the Organization believes that it was required because of a
blanket order by the Operations Supervisor as to medical certification. This
order, or one closely paralleling it, is reviewed in Third Division Award
26823, which is incorporated here by reference.
Form 1 Award No. 26824
Page 2 Docket No. CL-26805
88-3-86-3-61
Although the Board did not support the Carrier's action in issuing
this all-inclusive restriction on sickness absence, such is not applicable to
the circumstances here.
Rule 51(c) reads as follows:
"(c) The employing officer must be satisfied
that the sickness is bona fide. Satisfactory
evidence as to sickness, preferably in the form
of a certificate from a reputable physician, may
be required in case of doubt. If the employing
officer requires such certificate, the employee
shall be notified promptly of this requirement."
The record shows that the Claimant had reported off sick on two
previous occasions in July, 1984 -- only three months prior to the instance
here under review -- and that he had failed to bring in requested substantiation as to alleged illne
adequate reason to find that the Carrier would have "doubt" as to the authenticity of the Claimant's
The Claimant was not flatly denied sick pay benefits for October 21,
1984; he was simply asked for verification. When he failed to provide such,
Rule 51(c) offers the basis for denial of benefits.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
00,
Attest.
Nancy J. -(Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.