PUBLIC
La,r
BOARD No. 3308 -
Award No. 5
Case No. 5
PARTIZS :Brotherhood of Maintenance of .say L:mployes
TO
DISPUTE The atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Aailvay Company
STATEMENT
CF CLAL4 -Claim that former southern Division 'rraclonan
J. C. Dale be reinstated to service with seniority,
vacation, all benefit rights and paid for wage loss
and/or otherwise made whole, account unjustly re
moved from service for being absent without proper
authority."
FINDINGS Upon the whole record, the Board finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as
amended,
and that this Board is duly consti
tuted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction _f-the parties
and the subject matter.
Claimant, who had been absent without proper authority in
excess of ton days vas notified by letter dated October 2, 1981, theta
Olt
has bean brought to mp attention by your supervision
that you have been absent without proper authority in
excess of tan (10) days.
In accordance with letter of understanding of July 13,
1976, which became effective October 1, 1976, this is to
notify you that effective immediately your seniority and
employment with the ATSSB Railroad is hereby terminated
due to your being absent without proper authority.
This is to also notify you that in accordance with Rule 13
of the current Agreement, if you so desire, within 20 days
of the date of this notice you nay request that you be
given a formal investigation."
Claimant vas also requested to aclmoriedge receipt on attached
copy of the letter, which he did.
The Organisation maintains that when Claimant acknowledged
Award ho. 5
Page
:No.
2
receipt of the letter it served as a request for a formal investi
gation. 'rho urganization further aliages that since Carriar aid
not provide Claimant an investigation he vas not accoraed due
process. .
we have carefully reviewed the entire record in detail, but
we find no probative evidence to show that Claimant complied with
the provisions of Letter of Understanding dated July 13, 1976.
When Claimant ac3movledged receipt of letter addressed to him, dated
October 2, 1981, he merely acknowledged receipt of said letter and
the contents therein. The Claimant could have raquastud, if he so
desired, that he be given an investigation within 20 days of
October 2, 1981. This, he did not do. It was Claimant's sale
responsibility to request a formal investigation and by not doing so
admitted that h: had been absent without proper authority in omceaa
of 10 days and thereby rel.fnqu.ished his seniority under the pro
visions of the July 13, 1975 Letter of Understanding.
Ne
are left
no alternative other than to apply the :rule as written and find
that Clainaat forfeited his seniority and employment and Carrier did
not violate the Agreement.
AWARD ' Claim denied.
~~L~ ~. ~~n...Girm
Clarence H. Her ton
Neutral
Member
LL. V
w.-...~
Carrlyr zember organization M er
Dated at Chicago
L
February 22, 1983