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.
On May 3, 1995 the Claimant was the Supervisor of a gang at Burns Harbor, Indiana. Claimant and two other members of the gang were attempting to bend a rail with a jack when the rail broke and the Claimant fell into the bucket of a front end loader, hurting his back. He was then treated by his doctor for muscle and ligament damage, nerve root damage, and a herniated disk.
On May 17, 1995 the Carrier issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the charges set forth above, but the Hearing was postponed at the Claimant's request. The Claimant again requested that another Hearing, this time set for October 3, 1995, be postponed, citing his medical condition and providing as support a note from his doctor. Despite the request, the Carrier went forward with the Hearing in absentia, and subsequently a letter of reprimand issued to the Claimant.
The Organization contends that the Carrier committed reversible error because proceeding with the Hearing despite the Claimant's inability to attend due to his injury did not constitute a fair and impartial Hearing. We disagree. First, we note that Rule 27, relied upon by the Organization, provides only that postponements "may" be granted. Thus, discretion is vested in the Carrier and we are to be concerned only if the Carrier abuses its discretion once a request is made. On this point, we find no abuse of discretion. First, the doctor's note provided in support of the request for postponement did not preclude the Claimant from attending the Hearing. Rather, the physician says only that the Claimant could not maintain a standing or sitting posture for more than 30 minutes "... without the ability to lie down, change positions frequently, and take his medications." Moreover, the Carrier assured the Claimant that he would be accorded ". . . every courtesy and/or accommodation." In light of the foregoing we conclude that the Claimant unreasonably failed to attend the Hearing. Thus, when the Carrier went forward without the Claimant he was provided, under the circumstances, a fair and impartial Hearing.