.



                                        Case No. 66


    PARTIES ~- Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

    TO and

DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
 STATEMENT "l. That the Carrier violatecr the provisions of the current
 ~F CI.ATM agreement when in letter dated July 20, 1982, it advised
 Crane Operator D. A. Kuykendall to the effect that evidence -
 established in hearing held July 7, 1982, developed that he
 was in violation of Rule 810 of the Carrier's Rules in that
 he was absent without proper authority since January 10,
 1982, and, for reasons thereof, the termination notice dated
 ' May .18, 1982, was thereby affirmed and his seniority and
 employment with the Carrier had been terminated effective
 May 18, 1982, said action being excessive, unduly harsh and
 in abuse of discretion.
 2. That claimant, D. A. Kuykendall, be reinstated to the service
 of the Carrier with seniority and dii other rights restored
 unimpaired and that he be paid for all time lost."
 FINDINGS -

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Ldu ;;7-456 and nas jurisdiction of the parties and.the subject matter.

 The record indicates that claimant, who had been employed by Carrier since 1972, requested and was granted a leave of absence for a period of 29 days effective December 10, 1981. He was to report back to duty on January 10, 1982. Carrier heard nothing further from claimant until such time as a notice of termination was sent to him in May of 1982, and he acknowledged receipt of that termination letter on May 19, 1982. Subsequently, claimant requested an investigation be held with respect to his being terminated. That request was made on June 14, 1982, and a hearing was convened on July 7, 1982. Subsequently, Carrier reaffirmed its decision to terminate claimant's services.
 PLB - 2439 - 2 - AWD #I66

 Petitioner insists that claimant was under the impression that his leave of absence, which had been for both personal leave and also was considered to be a medical leave by him, had been extended by Carrier. Under Rule 33(d) of the agreement, the Organization notes that employees on sick leave shall not require written leaves of absence but may be required to furnish satisfactory evidence of their sickness or disability upon return to service. Under that rule, claimant did not have to file, according to the Organization, for any additional leave but simply had to furnish proof of his sickness or'disability upon his return. In addition, the Organization notes that Carrier made no attempt to contact claimant until the termination notice following the expiration of his leave and, furthermore, the penalty of dismissal was unduly harsh, excessive and in abuse of discretion.

 Carrier notes that thr` leave of absence which claimant secured was fur personal business reasons. Carrier asserts that claimant was well aware of the provisions of - Carrier's leave of absence program, having experienced five -personal injuries prior to his absence in the case herein. Thus, claimant was obviously aware of the fact that he had to stay in touch with Carrier during his period of medical leave if, indeed, it was a medical leave. Furthermore, at the investigation, the testimony indicated that claimant was not in the hospital during this period of absence but had seen medical aid three or four times during the period that he was off work. Most significantly, Carrier notes that attempts to contact claimant during his period of absence were unsuccessiul. In fact, other agencie$ and iitdivi-duals, including claimant's attorney, attempted to contact claimanf with Carrier's aid but to no avail. Most significantly,- there was no evidence oF any nrodical problems in troduced into the record of the hearing to indicate that claimant was incapable of returning to work due to an incapacity. Furthermore, it was apparent that claimant nad either a drug or alcohol problem which was ttrc cause of some oi' his difticulties.

 The Board notes that claimant was under the obligation, if his reliance on Rule 33 is to be credited, of providing evidence of his physical or medical problems upon return to work. This he failed to do. Claimant's failure not unly to provide evi dence of his medical disability, but also to stay in touch with Carrier during the period of his absence, is intolerable. It is not normal to expect an employer to accept an absence without either contact or a formal leave for a period of many , months, as in this instance, without questioning the ability or interest of an employee to continue in his job. Under all -the circumstances herein, Carrier was
 PLB - 2439_ - 3 - AWD 1/66

 correct in its decision to terminate claimant and the claim must be denied.

 AWARD
            Claim denied.


                    I:~M. Lieberman, Neutrdl-Chairman


L. C. Scherling, Carr er Member C. F. Foose,~ETIIplo a Member

 San Francisco, CA
 March 1,7, 1984