PARTIES SDUMRW PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO.
 ARM LIM) )



            ON== TRANSPORTATION MON

DISP(SWITCBMN) )

 STATE40T OF CLAIM:
        Clain is wade in behalf at Svitobman T. L. Sanders for reinstatement to service with full seniority rights unimpaired, loss of earnings commencing November 9, 19$4 and continuing until Fee is re-turned to service; also, for holiday pay and vacation credits, Port Caste Yard.


HISTORY OF DISFd1T8:
 Claimant entered the Carrier's service as a switchman on
 June 15, 1973.
 On Daeemher 3, 1983 Claimant was injured in an automobile
 acoident.as a result of which he spas convicted as July 23, 1986 of driving
 under the influence of alcobal and causing injury. ft September 10, 19&&
 Claimant was sentenced to two years for the offence.
 Apparently is accordance with the advice of his Traiamastes,
 claimant requested a leave of abseacs for personal business to extend from
 September 10, 1981 to September 9, 1985. xavever, Carrier never granted
 the request.
 on September 16, 2984 Claimant laid off nick sad never returned to duty.

        Claimant was incarcerated as of OttoUr 13, 2984. by letter


of October 16, 1984 the Carrier notified Claimant to appear for a formal
 investigation concesalag his absence from work. The investigation vas held on October 25, 1984. by letter of November 9, 1984 the Carrier notified Claimsat that evidence adduced at the Iavestigatioa established his responsibility for laying off sick on September 14, 2984 a=d being absent frost his employment since that dace without proper authority. The letter stated Claimant*& conduct violated Aule 810. The letter also stated that Claimant vas dismissed from the Carrier's service.
 The Organisation grieved the discipline. The Carrier denied the grievance. The Orgaaiistion appealed the dauial to the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such dispute*. However, the diaputs remains unresolved, and it is before this Board for determination.

 PAITIE5' YOSMM.
 rbe Carrier ssaintains that the evidentiary record in this case supports its finding that Claimant violated Rule $10 and that under the circumstances of this case dismissaI'xas appropriate.
 The Carr_er~urges that it is not requlrad by agrcemant, law or practice to grant a leave of absence to an employee who is going to be incarcerated and that its denial of Claimant's request for such leave was proper. The Carrier emphasixes that Cl:ietsat laid off nick when he knew he was going to 6e incarcerated. to the final analysis, argues the Carrier, Claimant vas absent from duty without proper authority.
 kith respect to the measure of discipline, the Carrier emphasize: this is the second time Claimant hat violated Mule 810 by being absent ,from work due to incurcerstiou. In the previous instance the Carrier

                                                  X2243-~


                          .- 3 ..


reinstated Claimant and permitted hiss to progress as appeal for tine last which man denied by Public 1.av Board ho. 3516 is Avard NO* 34 rendered by the same panel hearing the instant case. The Carrier urges than inasmuch as Claimant has not re#ormed his conduct, dismissal vas appropriate.
 The Organisation maintains that Claimants incarceration and subsequent absentatisrs was the result of psychological prohlems and alcohol depesdaace which should be handled as a medical matter- The Organization emphasises that Claimant participated is an alcohol rehabilitation program vhiis incarcerated and that Claimant has not used s1cahol since his release approximately eighteen months ago. Additionally, argues the orgiaitation, Claimant has undergone radical surgery for bowel cancer and his efforts to ovarcoas his health problems demonstrate a serious attitude. The Organization urges ehat,accordiaglT, Claimant should be given another opportunity to prove his worth as an employee.

 FINDINCSa
 The Board upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that the employees and the Carrier are employees and Carrier within the meaning of the sailvay Labor Act, as amended, 45 tl.S.C. 33151, et red. The Board also finds that it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute in this case. The Board further finds that the parties to the dispute, including Claimant, were given doe notice of the hearing in this case.
 we believe the avidentiarT record in this case amply supports the conclusion that Claimant viol*:ted Rule 810. Ciaimartt was incarcerated

                                                  ~2z3-~k


and thus could act report to work. Claimant's request for a leave of absence was denied. mid we believe the Carrier vas under no obligation to grant that request. Accordingly, Claimant was absent from varlt without proper authority.
 Haeever, we agree with the Organization that under the ciroumstaacai of this case the discipline of dismissal is too torah. ifiile the violation of Rule 810 vas Claimant's secead nff#nse under virtually identical c1rcuastances; it appears that Claimant's nose reesut imearcaration has had a pasftiva effect open him. Hs has not vsrd alcohol since him relaasc. Moreover, Claimant participated in an alcohol rehabilitation pxegraa while incarcerated.
 We are pusvaded that Claimant should be reinstated and given aye last chancy to prove hfaself worthy of employment with the Carrier. Hwevar* ere also beliav: that Claimant needs a structured program relating

                              t

to alcohol abuse. Accordingly. we will matte his reinstatement conditioned upon his participation is the Carrier's alcohol rahAbilitatiou progrms.

 Claim sustained to the extent that Claimant is reinstated upon the Condition that he participates in end succassrvlly completes the Carrier's alcohol rehabilitation program. Claim denied is all other respectUt.

                  William g. Ztedanbergar, r.

                  Chairman and Neutral Member


D. E.'Torreg 1 B. Partridge
 Carrier Member Employee Member
 DATED: