STATEI",2'NT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Carrier violated the collective bargaining agreement
 between the parties when they dismissed Trackman C. W. Thompson from
 service May 21, 1979, said dismissal being exce~ive ar:: azhitr ^:.-.-.

 2. That the Carrier now compensate claimant Thompson for ail wage
 and benefit loss from June 21, 1979 until October 31, 1979, inclusive.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1532 finds that the parties
 er~ein -are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was employed August 22, 1977. On May 21, 1979 the Carrier wrote to the claimant advising him that he ::as terminated because of being absent in excess of ten calendar days without authorized leave of absence from May 9, 1979 through May 21, 1979. The claimant was found guilty and remained out of sarvice.

 The Organization filed claim for reinstatement. Sometime thereafter the claimant was reinstated by letter dated October 22, 1979 and pe-_formed his first service on October 31, 1979. Therefore, the sole issue before this Board is the pay for time lost between May 21, 1979 and October 31, 1979.

 The Organization contends that other employees ·were not required to obtain leave o= absences when they_were of= duty 'acause o= on-duty injuries.

 T:Za Board has reviewed the transcript of record, and there is no aouot but t;iat t::.e claimant was absent in excess o':: ter: calendlar day:. without an authorized leave of absence. However, it is likewise equally apparent that the Carrier was well aware that the clai;tlant had had an on-the-job injury.

 The evidence also indicates that the Carrier does not apply the leave of absence rule equally to all employees. If the ten day rule is going to be strictly enforced by the Carrier, it L.:ust be equally applied to all employees, and the employees :rust be aware that such rule is going to be strictly enforced. T;-.is ruling applies to those types of cases wherein the Carrier is aware that the claimant has been injured and is unable to perform service.

It is recognized that in the instant case t-Le Carrier introauced evidence that the claimant had signed d card that 1,e had taken an eaa:aination on the rules. It is insufficient to advise tae employees that the rule is going to be strictly enforced and then enforce the rule against some employees and not dbaitisc others.

 On this basis it is the opinion of the Board tciat tae claimant is entitled to be paid for all time lost from ~iay 21, 179 t roursh October 31, 1979.

 .fvTARD: Claim sustained.

                            /.il~si- 7<.

                            Preston J. Modre, Ciairman


                            roanization :-iecaoer


                            C~ Mem er