PUBLIC LAW 307LKi ;.e0. 3308

Award No. 12 tease too. 12

PARTIES arotherhood of Maintenance of way amployes
TO
DIEpU'fE The Atchisnn, Topeka and ianta Fe railway CoL.pany
STATEM:SNT
OF CLAIM "Claim ;or reinstatement of former S; ste.n tail
Laying Cang f1-rnup 11, lass 1) enplo;e
Deswood S. 1BPgay for reinstatement with seniority,
vacation, all ixanefit rights and pay for was
lose and/or othcrviee made xhole, account the
claimant's na-a 5e in: ir-properlY r_~-owed from the
seniority roste_ for failure to respond to recall."
PINDINGS Upon the whole record, the Board finds that the
parties hrsin are carrier and aaployes within the weaning of the
Railway Labor -Act, as amended, and that this Zoard is duly consti
tuted under Public Law 89-4Sb and has jurisdiction of the parties
and tha subject matter.
on June a, 1981, the following letter was addressed to the
Claimants-

"In accordance with Article 2, Section (c), you are bein.^_ recalled to service at Coal City, Illinois on the Illinois Division effecti,.·e June 29, 19°1. rlease report to Oallup, Vew fexic~ on June 27, ?981 at 11 s.°C .~.: ., i7or departure: to Coal City, T11inois.

Failure to report as indicated a:cve will result in loss of seniority. Please aclarowledge this letter when copy is received by contacting the Employment c:ffice at (505) 883-5061 'mmediately."

Sy Certified=Mail *1473014, Return Receipt Requested dated
August 17,-1981, Claimant vas advised that%
^::a a result of :-our f~ii:~rc·. to rpporl_

Award No. 12

. Page No. 2

within fiftopn (15) days aftef recall fcassigruncnt at Coal City, Illinois, in accordance with rule 2, section (c), ycu are being dropped from the Croup il, Class 1, System Steel Gang seniority roster with forfeiture of seniority rights."

The Organization contends that Clairant did not rerort for service due to illness and further? Carrier failed to grant him a leave of absence under the provisions of .,ule 22.
A careful raview of tho r,-cord reveals that on .rune 2_t, 1901, Claimant's daughter calls:: tk_c~arricr's office at :'allup, New c-exico, and advised that her fathsf wan ill. t that tine she was advised that it vas the Carriar·s policy*and practice to require a doctor's statensnt fxea employes claiming any type of illness. she was, therefore, instructed to furnish the Carrier with .se-ch a statement. Neither the Claimant nor any member of his family r..,ad _ fur ther contact with the Carrier. The record further reveals that at no tir:,e did the Claimant or any member of his family make a request for a leave of absence under the provisions of -ule 22.

le have reviewed this record in detail and find no procative

evidence to show that Claimant complied with the izancator; provisions
of Article 2, Section (c;. It is the conclusion of this .oard that
Carrier did not violate the Agreerei:t.
AWARD Claim denied.

Clarence H. Her ton

Neutral !'.ember

t'1sa:acOr or -ii ation .eu:c

Dated at Chicago, Illinois March 1, 198.3