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 du i·, constituted under Public Law 59-156 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
At the time of his dismissal-. Claimant was employed as a Trackman and had some 1.years of service with Carrier. He was terminated for being absent from duty without proper authority for more than five consecutive work days beginning April 0, 1987. Followinu an investigation. Carrier's decision to terminate him was
The record indicata=-- that on the afternoon of Aoril 19. 198'1Claimant was aranted oermission b·: his Foreman to be off to see a doctor. Admittedly, his Foreman advised him that if he needed t·_ be off beyond that date he should contact either the (rack Supervisor or the Roadmaster to obtain permission. Subsequently Claimant was absent on April :ap, May 1. 5, 6 and 7, without oUtaining permission. Claimant testified that he believed that he had to acquire a doctor's slip indicating that he should either 00 on light dutv or on leave of absence. However, he testitied that he did not see a doctor until May 7. It should also be noted that the record indicates no evidence whatever to show that he saw a doctor in fact on May 7. or on any other date.
The Organization maintains that Claimant was under the impression that everybody was aware of his situation and that he was fully protected until notice was received from him after con=sultation with the doctor. The Organization insists that this fact, together with Claimant's vears of service, indicate that his dismissal was both capricious and unduly harsh.
Carrier, on the other hand, indicates that Claimant clearly understood from his Foreman that he was beinq granted permission to be off only on the afternoon of April 29, in order to see a doctor. Any further time off would have to be preceded b·: a formal approval by a supervisor. Carrier also indicates tnat.
particularly. in view of Claimant's previous eight disciplinary incidents. including five for being absent without authoritv. it was within its prerogatives to dismiss him under these particular circumstances.
As the Board examines the record there is substantial evidence on support of Carrier's position. Claimant was granted permission to be off for one afternoon only, and was advised to seek permission for- any further absence. He failed to do so, and was absent for a period of six days without obtaining permission. This being absent without authority, and the additional fact that there was no evidence whatever that he did indeed ever see a doctor, indicates that Carrier's conclusions were amply supported by tide facts. The dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances arid will not be disturbed.