The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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. Form 1 Award No. 31372
Claimant, who had been dismissed as a result of an alcohol dependency problem, was restored to service without back pay by Special Board of Adjustment No. 976, Award 323-A. Claimant's return was contingent upon approval of Carrier's EAP counselor and receipt of a negative drug screen. Claimant returned on August 12, 1992, and worked 94 days during the remainder of 1992. The Organization contends that if carrier had not delayed in approving his reinstatement, and also had credited him with time that he was documented to be sick between July 30, 1992 and August 12, 1992, he would have satisfied the 100 day qualifying requirement of the Vacation Agreement.
It has not been established in this record that an inordinate delay occurred between the time that SBA No. 976 directed Claimant's conditional return to duty. Nor has the Organization persuaded the Board that it would be appropriate, under existing contract language, to credit sick days occurring before the actual date of return as qualifying days for vacation purposes.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to Claimant(s) not be made.