Claimant herein- had been employed by Carrier in 1979. He was injured in an on-duty accident and was off on disability for some time. Claimant was recaLled from furlouoh on March 11, 1985, ant returned to work. He returned to work with an 8Q-lb lifting restriction which had been applied to him by his own doctor in his medical release. This information had been relayed to Carrier When he returned to work on March 11, his foreman apparently was ::X43q- la-o
his back became go home and see Maintenance of
Way Clerk and informed him of his problem and his intentions of going home. The following day, March 13, Claimant informed his Foreman that he had to lay off because of his back problem. He also called the Regional Engineer and made him aware of the situation. On the same date, Claimant saw his doctor who prescribed bed rest. Subsequently, on July " 1985, Claimant was not=ified that he had been absent without authority from March 1.2 to the date of the letter (July .'s), and that this was in violation of Carrier's Rule M-810 and, therefore, his employment toad been terminated. There was also testimony in the record which indicates that the Claimant had been employed on a part-time basis by a janitorial service, while out of work: due to the disability (troth before and after his return to service in March. 1985) and, furthermore, had been going to school. His testimony was that he would rather- earn his own living than exist an disability since he could not, at that time, work on a regular basis for Carrier.
Carrier based its decision to terminate Claimant on both his absence from work. during the dates indicated and failure to be in touch with Carrier during that period of time as well as outside employment in violation of Rule 810_
Petitioner, relies, in part, on Rule 33 (d) which provides that employees on sick leave, or with physicnl disability, should not require written leave of absence but may "upon their return to service be required to furnish satisfactory evidence of their sickness --or disability". In this case, according to the Organization, the Carrier was well aware that Claimant had been in an accident and, while he was off duty, he had taken every step required to inform Carrier of his intention and of his problemcurthermore, he did not abandon his job, as the Carrier alleges, but simply was unable to work. due to the physical limitations or, his lifting, which Carrier, did not honor.
As tire Soard views it, Claimant failed to inform Carrier, as was required in Rule 810, that he was working or intending to work- for another employer during his period of disability. On the other
hand, Carrier was incorrect in assuming that Claimant had abandoned his job, since it was well aware of his disability problem, and of the fact that after, returning to work he had a medical problem reoccur,. Thus, it is the Board's view that termination in this casp was inappropriate. We shall, therefore, order- Carrier to reinstate Claimant to his former position subject to a return-to-work physical examination but with no pay for, tine lost.