PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4370
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD N0. 1-5
Case No. 15
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Carrier's decision to dismiss Equipment
Operator Mr. R. D. Morelock was in violation of the
Agreement arbitrary, capricious and unduly harsh.
The Carrier shallnow be required to reinstate
Claimant to his former position with seniority and
all other rights restored unimpaired and compensation
for all wage loss suffered.
F I N D I N G S
The Claimant was notified by certified mail- to his
address of record that he would be subject to an investigative
hearing on September 18, 1987 in reference
to
his responsibility
for his "alleged absence without proper authority from August3, 1987 through September 11, 1987". The letter was returned
as unclaimed by the addressee. The Claimant did not appear for
the hearing. Following the hearing, the Claimant was dismissed
from service.
PLB No. 4370
Award No. 15
Page 2
Testimony by the Claimant's Supervisor was to the following -
effect: The Supervisor talked with the Claimant on August 3. -
The Claimant advised that his doctor required him to be out of
servicefor "two or three days". The Claimant was then advised
that a doctor's statement woul.dbeneede-d as to his diagnosis -
and projected duration of absence. Nothing further was heard
from the Claimant until August 27, when he left a message that
he had been released from
a
Veterans Administration Hospital;
he was-going to Oklahoma to visit an ill brother; and that he
would call again. Nothing further was heard from the Claimant
up to the date of the investigation:
The record shows a letter dated November 4, 1987 from the
Claimant to his General Chairman, alleging his continued illness.
The Organization faults the propriety of the investigation,
arguing that the Claimant was on sick leave-and-thus not subject
to an investigation.- The Organization cites Rule 32in this
regard, but this Rule refers only to an employee injured on duty
not being required to attend an investigation; it does not refer
to off-duty illness or other matters.
The Referee finds that the Claimant was no t. on authorized
sick leave, having provided no documentation nor having been -
specifically granted such leave. It was clearly his respon
sibility toprovide such information. In the absence of such
information, the Carrier's action was warranted.
PLB No. 4370
Award
No. 15
Page 3
The Organization also makes a-procedural objection in
that the reply to the Organization's-appeal-was not signed. by
the Division Superintendent. The reply was, however, signed
"for" the Division Superintendent by a member of his staff-, and
the Referee finds this was sufficient. .
A W A R D
Claim denied.
HERBERT L. MARX, JR., Referee
DATED: September 29,--1989
NEW YORK,
N.Y.