PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim in behalf of former Middle Division Track
 man e~c c, as follows

 (1) That the Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, particularly, but not limited to, Article V thereof when they dismissed claimant from service as a result of investigation held on July 27, 1978, said dismissal being arbitrary and abusive.

 (2) That the Carrier now reinstate claimant to service with seniority, vacaton and all other rights unimpaired and with pay for all wage loss that resulted from. his dismissal of July 27, 1978-.

 FINDINGS: This: Public Law. Board No. 1582'finds that the parties
 erein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,. as amended, and that this Board. has jurisdiction.

 Ia this: dispute the claimant was allegedly absent from duty without
 proper authority commencing Ma 6, 1978 On June 9, 1978 the Carrier
 mailed the claimant a notice advising-that his seniority and employ
 ment was terminated ix accordance with Article 5 of the current agree
 ment. On June 28., L978 the. claimant requested a formal investigation
 which was held on. July 19, 1978. Pursuant to the investigation the
 claimant was found guilty of being absent from duty without proper
 authority and was terminated as a result thereof.

 The- Organization filed a claim-for reinstatement of the claimant to service with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and with pay for all wage. loss. which resulted from his termination. on July 27, 1978.

 The: record herein indicates. that the last day the claimant worked was May 5, 1978. The extra gang foreman testified that he did not give the claimant aermissiorn to be absent from duty since May 5. However the claimant had filed Form 1516 Standard, which is a request for a leave of absence. The request for a leave of absence was to commence May 8, 1978 and last through June 8, 1978. The leave of absence was not granted.

 However, evidence indicaccs there have been several instances in the past when a leave of abconce has been filed, and the employee has taken the leave of absence before it was authorized by the Carrier.

                                          Page 2


Under ordinary circumstances the employee would be required to have an approved leave of absence before taking off. However, since several times in the past the Carrier has allowed employees to take off after filing a request for a leave of absence, the employee may be partially justified in assuming that the leave of absence would be granted. Therefore it appears to the Board there were some responsibilities which the claimant failed to live up to and some responsibilities which the Carrier failed to live up to.

 The claimant has a very poor record. He had been disciplined on three other occasions for being absent without authority. He had been discharged on June 16, 1977 for being absent without authority. The claimant only had nineteen months of service with the Carrier, but in view of the Carrier failing to establish a definitive policy in regard to leaves of absence, the Board finds that the claimant should be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired but without pay for time lost.

 AT-lARD: Claim sustained. as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is-directed to comply with this award within qty days from-the dateof this award.

 ' Preston core, airman

 rganizati'-' once
 J. - . 'emT'Er

 _ , _-_. _ axle embe~