Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29172
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29329
 92-3-90-3-247
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

1. Carrier violated the Clerical Agreement at New Orleans when it failed and/or refused tt :ompensate Clerk L. L. Spencer for three (3) days supplemental sick benefits on his return to work after having been off sick January 17, 18 and 19, _?89.

 2. As a result Df the above, the Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Spencer a total of twenty-four (24) h 17, 18 and 19, 1989."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, .'=zds that:

 The carrier or _arriers 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 D; the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant, a regulariy assigned Clerk at New Orleans, Louisiana, marked off from work due to illness on January 17, 18 and 19, 1989.

 Upon his return to work, the Assistant Trainmaster requested Claimant to furnish satisfactor; evidence showing his illness was bona fide and necessitated an absenc suffered from the flu a,^.d spent the days he was absent in bed, drinking juices and taking aspirin. C:a_mant also stated that he did not have any documentary evidence to verif; ~is "word" that he had been truly ill.
 Form 1 Award No. 29172
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29329
 92-3-90-3-247

 On January 27, :989, the Assistant Trainmaster informed Claimant that his application for sickness pay was denied because the only satisfactory evidence of his illness wo




Unlike similar provisions on other properties (see Fourth Division Award 3727 cited by the Carrier), Rule 44(h), standing alone, does not expressly compel the ill empl the genuineness of a sickness. Indeed, the Assistant Trainmaster did not specifically demand that Claimant provide a physician's note until after Claimant had already inform his illness.

 Since the Carrier was not going to excuse Claimant without a doctor's note, it should have placed Claimant on notice that whenever he was absent in the future, he must supply a doctor's statement. Absent some warning, Claimant did not presumptivel7 medical treatment for a short, minor illness.

 The Carrier argued that Claimant had been given "prior handling" but it failed to elaborate on the nature of the "prior handling." This Board may not assume that the Carrier counseled Claimant about excessive absenteeism or warned him that he needed to have a physician's note if he was absent in the future. Also, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Claimant has engaged in a pattern of abusing sick leave benefits.

 Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, Claimant's January 25, 1989 note constituted satisfactory evidence of his illness and absence from work. The Carrier shall compensate Claimant for twenty-four hours of sick pay.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J e r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of April 1992.