Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier arid Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. as amended. and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 99-456 and has ,jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
Claimant herein had been employed by Carrier in 1974. On August 4, 19856. Claimant was granted a leave of absence -for fam.ilv and personal reasons in order to go to Mexico. While in Mexico.
Claimant became ill and was treated by a physician who orescribed bed rest. At that time. Claimant put in a call to his father who is also a Carrier employee, explained the problem. and asked that Claimant's father notify Carrier that Claimant would be late returning to work from his leave of absence and the reason for that tardiness. The record also reveals that Claimant's father contacted the Roadmaster with the information concernino Claimant's predicament. Upon return from his illness, Claimant immediately returned to work and presented evidence of that illness to Carrier. By a letter dated October 1, Claimant was informed that a formal hearing was scheduled to take place in order to establish his responsibility, if any, for his alleged unauthorized absences from August 16 through August 22. 1986. f=ollowino the hearing_ which was ultimately held on October- 17, Carrier, by letter datQd January 14, 1987, dismissed Claimant from service because of his violation of Rule 604.
Lavrtcr takes the position that there was substantial evidence of record to establish the fact that Claimant was absent without proper authority from August 16 to l-august 22, 1986 in violation of Carrier's rules. In addition, Carrier notes that Claimant had a particularly poor past record of tardiness and absenteeism since being employed by Carrier.
T -he Board has examined the record of the investigation with considerable care. While it apparent that the Roadmaster did not authorize Claimant's absence during the period in question, after receiving a phone call from Claimant's father, this in itself is not persuasive. There is no possible wav that Claimant could have returned to work upon completion of his authorized leave of absence, due to his illness. -The illness was documented and there zs no basis whatever, as the -Board views it, for Carrier's conclusion that anv rule was violated by Claimant's conduct. The facts are not in dispute. Dismissal simply was uncalled for-, since-there was no violation of any Carrier rules by the particular incident involved in this matter. Thus. the 'hoard