The parties to this dispute are clear on the property that this is a claim handled "under the self-invoking provisions of Appendix `R'." There is no argument on the property: the Investigation required the Claimant "to meet his burden of proof" to maintain his employment relationship.
The Claimant was absent on September 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 1998. The transcript contains testimony from the Claimant to support his position. The Claimant argues that he was absent due to medical problems and calls were made to the Carrier to obtain proper authority. The record indicates that the Claimant worked his last day on September 12 and had September 13 as a rest day. On the morning of September 14, 1998, the Claimant testified that he had an allergic reaction to a new medication which left him in respiratory arrest and comatose. The Claimant testified that he did not regain consciousness until September 16, 1998. Thereafter, he had calls made to the Carrier by his ex-wife, girlfriend and his Union representative.
The Organization points out that the Carrier did not request the testimony of the Union representative. It also points out that the Claimant's failure to contact the Carrier was never proven in the record. In fact, the Claimant did obtain the assistance of others to contact his supervisors as soon as he was able to regain consciousness. Those contacts to his supervisors were never returned.
The Carrier does not agree. It maintains that the Claimant did not attempt to contact the Carrier and was in fact absent without authority. The Carrier notes that in the Claimant's brief history with the Carrier, he had knowledge of the proper procedures and phone numbers to establish contact and obtain permission to be absent. The Carrier maintains that the Claimant provided only evidence of two ambulance rides and a letter that he was under care for "stress related medical conditions." The Carrier does not find any evidence to support the case that the Claimant could not have contacted his supervisors during the time in question or that anyone else made an attempt to do so.
The Board finds that the evidence does not support the Claimant in the instant case. Even if the Union representative had testified, the Claimant stated that no contact had been made. The Claimant testified that:
Through all the discussion of telephone records and voice mail, there is no proof whatsoever in this record that any call was made. Even ignoring the first few days, the Board can find no persuasive evidence that the Claimant had attempted to contact the Carrier in the last few days of his absence. The Claimant argued that he could provide phone record proof. There was none ever submitted. Supervisor Maddex testified that there were no problems with his pager system, and that for the entire week nothing was heard from the Claimant.
Given the record at bar, the parties understand that this is an Appendix "R" proceeding and that the Claimant must present sufficient evidence that he was not absent without proper authority (Public Law Board No. 5396, Award 28). He did not do so. Following Supervisor Maddex's statement that no contact was ever made advising of the Claimant's medical situation, the Claimant did not produce evidence of any phone record indicating a call was ever made. Nor was there any testimony or letter from his former wife, Union representative or girlfriend that a message was left. Nor did the Claimant prove that he had made a call or present evidence that he lacked access to a phone when transferred to Charter Hospital. What is in the record is testimony from the Carrier that notification was never received.
This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.