(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-13002) that:

The Carrier violated the Amtrak-Northeast Corridor Clerks Rules Agreement on September 12, 2001, when it put Lead Ticket Receiver, (tent Green, in harms way by paying him with a sick day (Pay code 11) that he did not want to be charged and singled him by not paying him the correct (Pay code) as his fellow non-partial exempt coworkers had requested to be paid at and were then paid at, straight time (Pay code O1).

Claimant Kent Green now be made whole for the sick day charged one (1) sick day (as a credit) back to his sick day allowance.

On September 11, 2001 Terrorists struck the city of New York by bombing the World Trade Centers Two (2) Towers. The mayor of New York in several conferences advised all city residents and those who commute to the city for their employment (not to come to the city) if they do not have to, as the city would be shutdown for the next few days. Commuter trains were not running at normal frequency either on September 11 or September 12, 2001. The Carrier paid employees who could not get into the city on September 11 and 12 at straight-time or unless the employee requested sick, personal or vacation day. Claimant made no request to be paid as a sick day. The Carrier charged him a sick day anyway, yet Claimant's non exempt "Partial Exempt CoWorkers were all paid at straight time due to not being able to make it

The Carrier is in violation of rule/s but not limited to:

Rule 4-1-1 (Sick Leave) Paragraph (G)

Article XII - Quality of Service (New)

Rule 5-E-1 - Forty (40) Hour Work Week and Other Rules

This claim has been presented in accordance with Rule 7-B-1 of the NEC-TCU Agreement and with the new change, from the Off-Corridor Clerks Rules Agreement, Rule 25 and should be allowed and accepted as presented."

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.

On September 12, 2001, the Claimant did not report to his job at Penn Station, New York, because of the terrorist attacks of the previous day. During handling on the property, the Carrier asserted that the Claimant called in on September 12 and requested a sick day and that the Claimant subsequently admitted that he called in and requested a sick day. The Claimant submitted a written statement which stated that he did not report for work on September 12 because the Mayor of New York had asked that people not come into the city that day and because he did not feel comfortable reporting for work in light of the prior day's terrorist attacks. Significantly, in his statement, the Claimant did not dispute that he called in and requested a sick day. The Claimant and the Organization maintain that it was unfair to charge the Claimant a sick day for September 12 when subsequently the Carrier decided to pay employees who were absent on September 12 and who had not requested sick or vacation days to cover their absences. A general argument of unfairness, however, provides no basis for a claim. The Organization simply failed to specify any Rule that precludes the Carrier from granting an employee's request for a sick day and then charging him a sick day in accordance with that request. The claim lacks merit.

The Organization also contends that the claim must be sustained on procedural grounds. After denial of the initial claim, the District Chairman docketed an appeal with the Division Manager Labor Relations and requested a conference. The conference was attended by the District Chairman and the Vice General Chairman. The Division Manager Labor Relations denied the appeal in a timely manner but the Organization contends that the denial was ineffective because it was sent to the Vice General Chairman when it should have been sent to the District Chairman.

The only Rule quoted on the property, Rule 25(b) provides, in relevant part:

". . . If the officer to whom the appeal is made fails to render a decision in writing within sixty (60) calendar days of date of appeal, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented ... ."

AWARD