"Claim on half of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the National Railroad Passenger Corp.:
Claim on behalf of J. D. Buonopane, for reinstatement to his former position with all rights and benefits unimpaired and otherwise made whole for any losses incurred, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 50 and 57, when it terminated the Claimant's seniority and employment in a letter dated September 22, 2005, citing provisions of Rule 50, paragraph (d), and failed to hold an investigation as required by Rule 57. Carrier's File No. NEC-BRS(N)-SD-1075, BRS File Case No. 13706NRPC(N)."
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Claimant had been employed by the Carrier for 14 years. On September 22, 2005, the Carrier sent the Claimant a letter stating that its records indicated that he had exhausted his vacation entitlement and had been marked off continuously since July 13, 2005. The letter further noted that the Claimant had been granted no special permission to protect his seniority during his period of outside employment. The letter concluded that the Claimant forfeited his seniority pursuant to Rule 50(d) of the parties' Agreement, which provides, in relevant part:
The record evidence indicates that the Claimant exhausted his vacation entitlement for calendar year 2005 and, beginning July 13, 2005, was placed on leave of absence. Thereafter, he marked off continuously. The Carrier subsequently became aware that the Claimant had been employed by another entity since July 5, 2005.
We carefully reviewed the record in its entirety. There is no dispute that following the exhaustion of his vacation entitlement, the Claimant was continuously absent from his assignment without authority. There is also no dispute that he was employed by another entity during this period of time without permission from the Carrier to engage in such employment. As the Carrier urges, these are clear violations of Rule 50(d). Moreover, despite the Organization's contention that the Claimant was entitled to a disciplinary Investigation, it is well settled that forfeiture Rules like the one at issue are self-executing and may be applied without resort to a disciplinary Investigation. Under the circumstances present here, we cannot say that the Carrier's decision to enforce the Rule was unreasonable, notwithstanding Form 1 Award No. 40259
the Claimant's belated attempt to return to work. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.