STATE;-7VIT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to remove Los Angeles Division ackman B. G. Sanders from service was u::just; That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Sanders 'riLLu se·L:c:rity, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired and pay for nil u:t,,c: loss as a result of Investigation held September ii, '_'~:.~* cJnt:.d'suing forward and/or otherwise made whole, becauae the Carrier dis not introduce substantial, creditable evidence that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision, a«.: even Zf Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decic,ion, permanent removal from service is extreme and bars:: discipline under the circumstances.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that tae parties
 Mete n are Carrier and employee within the meanins of the*_tailway Labor Act, as amended, and. that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute, the claimant was notified to atten-~ a for..'a1 investigation in the Trainmaster's office at Needlet:, Californi-, on August 14, 1984. He was charged with his allc,---r'.1 ~·~fu~al. tc report for duty within the 15 days stipulated in the :.r'tt~er of May 30, 1984, and therefore being in violation of 8ulez -1, :3, L~., 15, and 16, General Rules for th R Guidance of Employer, form 2u 4o Standard.

 The Divisimi Engineer had received instructions from tlic

tiger's office in Los Angeles to contact the claimant and inatrs_:,-. him to return to work. The claimant returned to work Hay -'L, 1: ;4. de had not received the letter advising him of the terns o; :ii, being returned to work and was concerned about his ,2enioritv aa·: 'pay for the time he -.,,as off work. For that reason. he di·i Ltot return. to work the following day nor thereafter.

 Bp letter dated May 30, 1984, Superintendent D. D. Didiez 1,:~:ote c.:.: claimant advising him that he was instructed to report for duty within 15 days from the date of the letter. The claicuanr: -estifiii.l he did not comply,'with the lattsr Xor the reason that it still didnot. advise him of.the terms undsn.which he was being reinstated. Whop he did'not report fox duty,.'he was notified by letter hated it=* 28, 1984 that his seniority as a trackman with tae <:or.~;any ..>.i been terminated, since he had been absent without proper autr~orzty commencing May 22, 1984.

 The Union nu_;ests tLat tae notice does roc state _.:~t t,_ ._~i:.~;...' ,
                                    Page 2


employnienL is being terminated, but simply his seniority. An experienced person should recognize that the terms ace synonynuous, however, it could be confusing to an employee. The claimant should have returned to work and complied with the lrtt:or. As long as he signed no restrictions and returned to work, all of his rights were protected.

 The claimant was abscaat without authority in excess of 7.0 days. The evidence indicates that it was not the intent of the employeLI to completely disregard the instructions of the Carrier. Evidently, he was confused and did not understand his rights. For that reason, and that reason only, the Board finds that peraanect dii.seal. is too severe. . The Carrier is directed to reinstate the claimant with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, but without pay for time lost.

 AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with ti-ii!; award ;,iithin t=y days from the date of this award.

                      ' resto . Moore, hai:3Eaa -'


                          io~e


                                              l

                                                  - r


                        a er


Dated nt Chicago, Illinois November 26, 1984