Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 33994
Docket No. CL-34707
00-3-98-3-364
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
:
(Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-12042) that:
1. Carrier denied the payment of sick leave benefits to Mr. G. C.
Longsdorff for May 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31,
1996 for a total of $1416.48; June 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,10, 11,12, 13, and 14,
1996 for a total of $1180.04; and June 17,18,19, 20, and 21,1996 for
a total of $486.36.
2. Carrier must now compensate Mr. Longsdorff for twenty-seven (27)
days sick leave benefits as provided in the Working Agreement for
a total of $3082.88."
FINDINGS
:
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 33994
Docket No. CL-34707
00-3-98-3-364
The Claimant is a clerical employee at the Carrier's Peasco, Washington Material
Department with a seniority date of September 3, 1970. The Claimant asserts that he
sustained an injury on duty on May 8,1996, which caused him to be absent from work on
various days in May and June 1996.
The Carrier denied the Claimant's requests forsick leave benefits for dates during
May and June 1996 on the ground that "[slick leave benefits are not applicable under the
current Agreement to employees who have allegedly sustained an on-duty injury." The
Claimant had sufficient sick days accumulated to cover the period requested.
Aside from the fact that the Carrier's leave claim form makes repeated references
to "injury" and gives the employee the option of requesting "sick leave," Rule 55
mandates payment for "sickness" and does not make the distinction between sickness and
injury on duty that the Carrier seeks in this case. It is a fair interpretation that an
employee who is "injured" and cannot work is also "sick."
However, the Claimant is not entitled to receive multiple payments for the days in
question. The Carrier can offset any monies paid to the Claimant as a result of the
Claimant's recovering payments in other forums for the dates in question as a result of
losing work because of his injuries or because of his receipt of any other compensation
covering the dates at issue in this case.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the
Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is
transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April, 2000.