Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the' Railwav Labor Act, as amended. and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-·k5$ and has .jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
Mr. Martinet entered Carrier's service-on December .i8. 1971. On Oanuarv 19. 1987, Claimant phoned tai= RoadmaSter and requested three days off because of family problems. The Roadmaster granted
Claimant a week's vacation startina January 19, through Januarv 2.. Thereafter. Claimant did not report for work for a total of three: weeks. He was charged with being absent from work without authority from January 26, through January 300, 1987. The record also .indicates that as of January 19, 1967. Claimant was entitled to three week=. of vacation (earned). Following an investigative tnarinq, Claimant was found guilty of violating Carrier's rules
weeks of vacation which he indeed had earned. Carrier on the other hand believes that there is no doubt but that Claimant w ae instructed to take one week of vacation by the Roadmaster s statement. and that he took additional time off without authorization. In V.Lew of his past poor record, the Carrier believes that the discipline was fullv warranted.
Upon evaluating the testimony at the hearing. the Board is of the opinion that there is no question but that Claimant was granted one week of vacation. Thus, indeed, he was properly found guilty of an unexcused absence for the days charged. However, in mitigation of the Claimant's action. it must be observed that the statement in the telephone conversation was somewhat confusing. It could have been misunderstood and Claimant. realizing that he had three weeks of vacation and needino it for his family problems. took the t3.mC he had earned. Under ordinary circumstances the discipline invoked in this dispute would not be considered e::cessive. However, in view of the peculiar carcumstancs·s and the confusion involved, together with Claimant's poor record of violation of Carrier's absenteeism rules in the past, some discipline is appropriate. The Board concludes. therefore, that Claimant should be reinstated to his former positil~n with aiL rights unimpaired, but with no compensation for- time lost. This reinstatement shall be considered a final chance for Claimant to conform to Carrier's normal rules with respect to attendance, au3q -IL/.