Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28406
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28667
90-3-89-3-18
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it improperly terminated B&B Carpenter T. Moreno's seniority without benefit of an investigation (System File 1525/871047).

(2) The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority, benefits and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

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.



As of September 14, 1987, the Claimant was advised that he could not be released to take a vacation for the period from September 20 to October 10, 1987. The record is unclear whether this vacation period was requested by the Claimant as of September 14 or had actually been previously scheduled for the stated period.

In any event, the Claimant did not report for work Monday, September 21 and thereafter. On September 28, 1987, the Carrier sent the following letter to the Claimant:
Form 1 Award No. 28406
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28667
90-3-89-3-18







Although Rule 48(k) is considered by the Carrier to be self-effectuating, provision is made in R if he believes he has been "unjustly treated." Such conference was sought and held. As a result, the Carrier wrote to the Claimant on November 17, 1987, in part as follows:



The Claimant returned to service on November 24, 1987. However, the Organization maintained its right to pursue a Claim for time lost up to November 24, 1987.

Despite the controversy over the scheduling of vacation time, the record shows that the Claimant was seriously ill commencing September 19 and that notification of such illness was made to Carrier supervisors. This was conceded by the Carrier in its report of the November 4 conference, in which the Carrier representative stated that the Claimant "has proven . . . that he was sick and should have been off through 9/26/87."

Further, the Claimant contends that a Foreman, when informed of the Claimant's illness, arranged to place the Claimant on vacation (as previously requested) to avoid loss of pay for the Claimant. The Carrier argues that the Foreman did not have the authority to do so.

In any event, there was no legitimate basis for the Carrier's utilization of Rule 48(k), given t Claimant's illness. As a result, the Claim must be sustained for the period from termination of employment until restored to duty.
Form 1
Page 3

A W A R D

Claim sustained in accordance with

Attest:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May 1990.

Award No. 28406
Docket No. MW-28667
90-3-89-3-18

the Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division