Texas Division Trackman L. R. Johnson from service, effective June 13, 1988, was unjust.
Accordingly, Carrier should be required to reinstate Claimant Johnson to service with his seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all wages lost from June 13, 1988.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board - No. 4244 (the "Board") finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter involved.
In this dispute former Texas Division Trackman L. R. Johnson (the "Claimant") was notified by a letter dated June 13, 1988, that his seniority and employment with the Carrier was terminated that date on account of being absent without proper authority. The Claintant requested a formal investigation, and it was scheduled for July 19, 1988. The inves- tigation was eventually held on August 2, 1988. The
The Claimant testified at the investigation that he had injured his back while on duty and sought medical attention on May 11, 12 and 13, 1988. On May 13, his doctor instruc-
Morgan verified at the investigation that the Claimant visited him at the job site regarding a medical leave of absence. He testified that he instructed the Claimant to provide him with copies of the doctor's appointment slips and medical release to substantiate his absence. He also admitted that he informed the Claimant that he would submit the Claimant's request to Roadmaster Campbell. However, Morgan testified that although he never received the proper documentation from the Claimant he nevertheless discussed the Claimant's request with Campbell.
The Carrier's rules clearly state that an employee must not be absent from work without proper authority. Further, an absence greater than ten calender days must be authorized by a formal leave of absence. The record shows that the Claimant verbally requested a formal leave of absence from the Carrier but that he made no other effort to confirm the status of his request. The Claimant did not comply with the Carrier's rules in the handling of his request, and the Carrier had the right to remove the Claimant from service. However, it is the Board's opinion that the Claimant should be given the opportunity to return to service. Although the Claimant was absent without proper authority it is clear from the record that he did not intentionly attempt to circumvent the Carrier's rules: Based on these circumstances, the Claimant shall be reinstated to the Carrier's service but without pay for time lost.