On September 8, 1992, Carrier notified Claimant to appear for an Investigation on September 11, 1992, charging that Claimant had failed to comply with the conditions of his reinstatement by failing to enroll in the EAPA's recommended aftercare program and failing to document his participation in the aftercare program. The hearing was postponed to and held on September 12, 1992. On September 18, 1992, Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty of the charges and that he was dismissed from service.
There is no dispute that Claimant failed to enroll in an aftercare program. The Organization contends that Claimant was misled. It relies on a July 9, 1992, letter from the EAPA to Carrier's Medical Director outlining the EAPA's recommendations for Claimant's return to service. The letter, a copy of which was sent to Claimant, invited the Medical Director to contact the EAPA with any questions at a toll-free telephone number. The number was useable only for calls within the State of Pennsylvania. Claimant, who resided in the State of Indiana, was unable to contact the EAPA at the number provided and, therefore, was unable to get further information about the aftercare program.
Carrier contends that Claimant failed to comply with the reinstatement conditions. According to Carrier, Claimant had the responsibility for enrolling in the aftercare program and documenting the enrollment. Carrier argues that the Pennsylvania in-state toll-free telephone number was provided to Carrier's Medical Director because he was located in Pennsylvania. Carrier contends that Claimant was not misled because Claimant had the national toll free number for the EAPA in the May 15, 1992, reinstatement agreement; because the July 9, 1992, letter also listed a second telephone number for the EAPA which Claimant could have used but failed to use; and because Claimant could have obtained further information from a Carrier or Organization official but failed to ask for it. Form 1 Award No. 31222
The Board has reviewed the record. Our review leads us to conclude that the claim must be denied. Claimant was reinstated on a last chance basis. He admitted that he failed to enroll in the aftercare program and, consequently, violated a key condition of his reinstatement.
Claimant's excuse that he was misled by the provision of the in-state Pennsylvania toll-free number in the letter to Carrier's Medical Director does not persuade us to decide otherwise. The letter also contained the EAPA's regular phone number which Claimant could have called. Moreover, Claimant's conditional reinstatement agreement of may 15, 1992, contained the EAPA's nationwide toll-free number. Claimant's only reason for not calling that number was his speculation that his children or his wife may have thrown the May 15, 1992, agreement away. That explanation is not acceptable. It was Claimant's responsibility to safeguard such an important document. Furthermore, Claimant could have obtained assistance from a Carrier or Organization official. Indeed, after he was notified of the Investigation and charges, he did seek assistance from the Organization and was able to contact the EAPA. He offered no explanation for failing to do so sooner.
The evidence clearly established that Claimant failed to fulfill the conditions of his last chance reinstatement. Under these circumstances, his dismissal was proper.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.