For 1
I T BOARD





obert 'then award rendered.

 TIE T DISPUTE:
F CLAIM:

(Brotherhood f Railroad i nlen

 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

 "Claim on behalf of. the General Committee of the Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen n the Union Pacific.

Clai on behalf f T. . Griffin, o clear his personal record of any ention of this matter an o return hi to his former position it

his seniority, benefits an compensate i for all loss (sic) wages,
 ccount Carrier violate the current Signalmen's Agreement
 particularly le , t fade provide fair and impartial
 inesti anon evident when Carrier issued disciplined (sic" of
 isissal against the Claimant without first meeting the burden f
 roving its charge e as a result of an investigation held on October 10,

2. arrier's File .1 77 - . General Chairman's File . - Investi anon-. BRS File s.1 74 -U."


F 11~ Ills:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon I the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier r carriers

 the mlyemployees ivle i ti dispute
 r respectively carrier and employee within t i t Railway
 as approved June 21, 1934.

form 1

e


Award o. 7617 Docket .

This Division of the Adjustment rd has jurisdiction over tisut
 involved herein.

Aeslt on Investigation held in absentia on tob r 1 , 2002 the Carrier found that the Claimant violated Rule 1. en he falsified his reason for bein absent fro duty. n to , 2002 the Carrier dismissed tlai ant fro its service.

 T r shows tat i late Jun lai ns absent fro
 r tellin his s Supervisors. that he had lung cancer and had to have treatment. On
 July 0, 2002 the Claimant aim called is Supervisor t ors before t start f
 is shift stating that a would not a to work because he had t take lung an
 treatment. The Claimant as aske to provide medical evidence fro his odor
 verifying icondition. The Claimant failed too so.

 n September 16, 20 the Claimant took Company rere sic
 examination never mentioned anything aabout lung canc r. I fact e l t
 octors the examination was because he was caught sleeping on the

 t is clear that the Carrier rove its case that the Claimant a is to t reason for his senteeis .

 There is no sims t alter t a action f the Carrier in this case.

 AWARD
Claim denied.
 For 1 . 7 1
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-38054
 0__ _

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereb or that an and favorable to te Claimants) not be.

                      AI T

                      y Order of Third Division


ate Chicago, Illinois, this a to.