Upon the whole record. after hearina_, ihe_Board-- finds that -the nart.ies herein are Carrier- and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. and that this Board is dolv constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the uarties and the subiecL matter.
On March 19, 1.975. Claimant sustained an on--idutv in3urv to his hack: while employed by Carrier in the capacity ref Water Service Foreman. =ubsequen'fIv. Claimant was awarded a jury verdict of ,npynximateJv $90,000 for h,1= iniury. According to Carrier, in
letter-- to Carrier indicatino that Claimant should be returned to service based on an examination by his doctor in Julv of that year. Carrier did not recoon.ize Claimant's ability to return to work and failed to reinstate him at that time. Subseauentlv. in October- of 1986 Claimant aaain was evaluated by his own ohysiczon who stated in a letter that Claimant had no physical disabilities which would preclude him from any emolovment. Ultimately he was advised by Carrier that he was not considered to be an employee due to the oastcircumstances involved in his situation.
Petitioner argues principally that Carrier violated the Agreement by not reinstating Claimant to service.. Indeed if Carrier doubted his abiliLv to return to service and the medical department t-o1K::c.erred in this opinion. according to the Agreement. a three doctor nanel should be established to assess whether indeed Claimant had the physical ability to return to full emolovment. This Carrier refused to do. Accordina to Petitioner. Claimant in no way re linauishpd his right to employment based on the award he received for the iniucies sustained .in 1975.
Carrier argues that Claimant simply showed no interest in ret"rnina to his employment for the period from 1975 until 1984. F-uri-:hermore, --he abandoned that approach in 1984 and aaa.in two :ears later- made a second attempt at reemployment.
As the Board views .it Claimant. if .indeed he had rights to return to work after the jury verdictof 1975 (and there is some dispute with respect to the testimonv-at that tr.Tal). .it is evident that he had been silent: for approximately nine veers following that evaant. It must be concluded obiectivelv Claimant abandoned his position because of the lack: of any contact with- Carrier for- a period of at least nine years following the jury trial. There was no indication of what he did during that period of time or whether .indeed he was employed or could have been employed -by Carrier. There is no auestion but that this matter involves a job abandonment. Therefore, the claim must be denied.