PASTIES). ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE FAILWAY COMPANY
 TO . DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EtSPLOYEZS

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim for reinstatement of former Albuquerque
rights uais~sirad and pay for wage loss beginning December 8, 1980
 .continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole. account the claimant
 beiz4 tmmoved from service for being absent from duty without autaoxr
 ity .m~awva November 21, 1980 .

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

 In this dispixte the claimant was charged with being absent from duty without authority and was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 The Organization contends that the claimant contacted the Division Engineer's Office on several occasions during his alleged absence and gained authority for these abaexces.

 The carrier contends that the only date on which the claimant con
 tacted the Division Engineer's Office was December 1, 1980 and that
 the claimant did not have authority to be absent. The Carrier points
 up that the claiaant acs instructed to report to work: on November '3 .0,
 1.980 and tailed to do so.

 Under date of December 8. 1980 the Carrier notified the claimant drat he was being terminated for being absent from work without proper authority commencing November 21, 1960. This letter further stated that the claimant could, within twenty days from tl-at date, request an investigation, and such request should be forwarded to the office of the superintendent by certified mail.

 The Organization has alleged that the letter of understanding between the parties does not require that the request be made by certified mail and that such a requirement by the superintendent constituted harassment.

 The Organization raised several other issues in support of elaimaat. wha.ch were responded to by the Carrier. This response by the Carrier wan extremely difficult to read, and the Board was unable to determine the Carrier's answer.


The claimant herein is not unaware of railroad practices and railroad requirements in performing his work schedule. The claimant worked for other railroads and should be aware of his obligation to perform service.

 The evidence does indicate that the claimant called in and requested to be off on November 24, 25 and 26, and the Maintenance of Way Clerk evidently okayed this request with the admonition to be at work on December 1.

 Under all the circinnstances existing herein, it is the npinion of the Board that permanent dismissal is harsh, arbitrary and unjust. The Carrier is directed to reinstate the claimant with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, but without pay for time lost.

 Perhaps it should be noted that the letter of understanding did not require the claimant to request an investigation by certified mail. This only assists the employee in establishing that such a request was made within twenty days. If the request is made by regular mail, the employee may not be able to prove that his request for an investigation was made within twenty days.

 AWARDS Claim sustained as per above.

 ORDERS The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within
 t'h =ty days from the date of this award.

                              reston , . ,. oars,"C, airman


                                gan_zat on er


                              err e


CHICAGO, ILLINOIS FEBRUARY 17 '._983