PUBLIC Law HOARD NC. 3308
Award No. 6
case No. 6
P-~;;:3; .=rotherhood of
:iaiatznance of
Pray Lmployes
TG
DISPL'T:4' The Atchison* Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
S'=Am'ihT -Claim in behalf of former Plains Division :rackman
CF CLALM H. 3hon, Jr. for reinstatement with seniority,
vacation and all benefit rights unimpaired, account
the claimant being unjustly removed from service
for ~:eing aosent without authority."
FINDINGS Zpon the whole record, the Joard finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and mployes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor ,Ict# as amended, and that this -oard is duly constituted
under Public Lasr 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the
subject matter. .
Claimant, who had been absent without proper authority in excess
of ten days, was notified by letter dated ::ay 12, 1981, that
"Please be advised that in connection with application
of Rule 13 of Maintenance of Nay Eaployes Agreement,
your seniority and empioysrent with the AT
s
SF
Ry
Co are
hereby turainatad account being absent without authority
frog .:ay 1, 1981 to the present.
Also, please be advised that you have the right to request
a formal investigation under the provisions of article 3
of current maintenance of clay mployes Agreement, provided
you do so within trmty days of this notice."
The organisation, in submitting this claim, allege a violation
of Rote 13 - Discipline.
ward No. 6
- J3
a~
Page No. 2
:,e have carefully reviewed the entire record and rind no
probative evidence that Claimant complied with the provisions of
yattar of Understanaing dated July 13, 19a1. Under the provisions
of said letter, Claimant had twenty days from dray 12, 1981, to
request a formal investigation if he felt that
he had been unjustly
dealt with. This he did not do. In tact, the record reveals that
Claimant waited some seven months to pursue the matter. It Was
Claimant's sole responsibility to request a fo-mai investigation
within the prescribed time limit and by not doing so, admitted that
he had
been absent in excess of 10 days without proper authority.
He, thereby, relinquished his seniority and employment under the
provisions of the July 13, 1976 Letter of Understanding.
.ve are left no alternative other than to apply the Rule as
vritten and find that Claimant forfeited his seniority and employment
and Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
1aAL?D
Claim denied.
Clarence fi . tier g on
Neutral `ember
-;iifier Member Organization >-efrber
Dated at Chicago
February 22,_1933.