F_AfiTI~f_ Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 1'tl DISPUTE:
 and

:;;Tr~TCrtlttlT'_ "1 That. L ho Carrier-'s decision o-dismiss
 t
                proper authority whyie Claimant was off

                due to .illness was in violation of the

                Aqrr·r·mont, without -iu.=.-t ar-td uufficir·nt.

                cause: and an abuse of discretion.


                2. Carrier further violated said Agreement: when it failed to accord Claimant a fair and .impartial hearinn pursuant to Rule 13 when it became knowledgeable that Claimant was off duty duo to illness and not absent without authority.


                The Carrier -will now be required to clear Claimant's record of all charges mind reinstate him to his former position with seniority and all other rights re-stored unimpaired, with compensation for all wage loss suffered. "


FINDINGS:

Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board findo that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constitulod under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the p6rliwn and the sub3ect matter. -


The record .indicates that on May 23 Claimant: allegedly had an
 a-7-7V-/Yg

"cczdent arid fell while- riding can esc=alator. He contacted historoman thu following day crnd%or the following week (unvorific·ri

.information) advising the foreman of his problem and remained offwork for that week. IN remained off work- on the week startingJune 3, .19£35 through and includi.nw Lho 3r& -4th, 5th, 6th, 7t.l- >= '.and loth of June of 1985 without any contact with C<rrrier.-


rrccordinq to his statement, Claimant received medical ati:ention-

 finall·j only on

 he hart fracture dated June 11,

 without proper

 that under

 d

 May 3 Cr, 1985 duri.nq which tinge

 three ribs. Carr,ic:.r addressed a 1965, iinforming him That 150-

 authority for- over five days and

 the letter date=d Julv 1', 1971, h -

 r-rscaue·st- an investigation within 20 days pursuant to Rule

 Carrier received a letter from Claimaint on July 20, 1.985
 requestl.nr:l an investigation. The request for investigation was
 denied since it was received beyond the ':'Cr dray per-i.od specified.

 e

    it was found that


latter

 had been absent~

 indicated to him

 had the right to

 to him-

 Carrier takes the position LhaaL Claimant ryas properly removed
 Trr,.irn ....-·rvace in accordance with the Letter of UndarstandinQ dated
 ,7uir' 13, 1976. Furthermore, acc.ordinq to carrier-, Claimant's
 1;-:zlur-a to request are investigation within the prescribed :'0-day

 time limit invalidated any claim for fr.arthn_r cormul:·r-aiion or-

                                          ~~yr v9


r.-anstaLemenk. In support of .its. position, Carrier also relieE x7°i p"rt on a deczsion in Public Law Board 40:11, Award No. 27, unde=r similar circumstances Cinvolviny the sae parties). Carrier also notes that Claimant's past record included ten prior disciplinary nituaLions, nix of which involve=d absence without authority :rid two prior dismissals for violation of Rule C which further, -.upportud it.u conclusion.


'1"he Petitioner argues that Carrier deliberately violated the Agreement and refused to allow Claimant a fair and impartial hear iien as provided for in Rule lU. it in asserted by the organization that Claimant slid not receive the letter as rapidiv no he normally would have since he was in the hospital at the Lime and his father signed for the certified letter and failed to deliver it, to him. Under the circumstances, Carrier erred an not: permitting Claimant the benefit of an investigation.


A<. the Board views it, and as it has been hold previously, the tile. in thi- instance the Letter of Understandino dated juiv


1.°_, 1''776, is self--executing. In this instance it.:m
 O,pplacation is appropriate in view of the fact that Claimant was
 Absn"t for sir, days without proper authority arid furthermore raid
 not request an investigation within the prescribed period of
 t.1/rie. Under all l.hie circumstances and i.n view of Cli;:Lrnanl.
 pr 1. or disciplinary problems, Carrier was correct in i.ts
 c.onclusiartf:: and the Claim must. br:· deniLd.

 ii6VARD

            Claim duniod.


            T ....IN. Lieherman , Neutral Member


2-'O-r~ - (:!:4 :: * 00 x t~
 C. F. Foose,- Employe Member- G.P1. Garmon, Carrier Member

 Ct-sicaoo, Illinois

 .
 J~7 19ag