PAR=

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPAQ-y
 (Western Region) - and - BROTHERII=CCD OF LCCO~IC'rIV= ENGLNHIRS STATENC- N7 OF CL AL`J:


OP2YIQ~ OF BOARD: At the time this case arose, W. W. Harrop ("Claimant") had I1 years of service with the Carne-, durL-t-, par, of which he had been counseled concerning excessive absenteeism. For that -,asor., he was placed on the preferred attention list arid, on or about September 2, 2001, Crew Management Systems (CIYIS) notified Claimant's supervisor Manager Operating Practices (MOP) L. Busch that Claimant had not performed service since July 14, ?001. MOP Busch attempted to contact Claimant on several occasions over the next few weeks to determine why he had not brn workin;. AP.:r a number of failed telephone attempts, on September 20, 2001 a letter was sent to C:aimant via: :JAS. Certified Mail instructing Claimant to contact his supervisor, L. Busch. The notice was received by sad signed for by Claimant.

As of Sevtember 29, 2001 1IOP Busch had received no response from Claimant and concluded :hat th= was a ressible·..~ciar:on of General Code of Ccerarln; Rules 1.0, 1_13,1.15 and






COMPANY CASE NO. 1237405
 Superintendent's Bulletin No. 2 7. On that basis, Carr ier issued Notice ofinvestigation and Hearing,
 sent to Claimant on September 29, at his address of: ecord via U.S. Express Mail, providing in part:



Following `lie i^:restigaticn, atuh:clt Claimant appeared and testified concerning ~vs
 medically diagnosed condition of acute depression. Carrier found him ;ailty of insubordination and
 excessive absenteeism arid imposed :he discharge penalty. We conclude that Claimant cannot escape
 all responsibility for his failure to comply with Rule 1.15 (Duty - Reporting or Absence) and
 maintain an attendance record compatible with 5211 time employment. However, Carrier's
 conclusion that he was also insubordinate by wilfully refusing to comply with supervisory
 instructions is not supported bytherccord evidence. Indeed, 'us tutrefuted testimony conc_°avnghe
 debilitating efiecs of his medically dial osed condition of clinical depression, for which he was at
 one time in EAP treatment, runs ccurter o a finding of wilful insubordination.

Given the unique factual snuaticn presented on this record, and without precedent, we direct Carrier to tender Claimant aI~ast Chance" reinstatement without back pay, conditioned on the following: 1) Claimant :fast zontact E 1.? within ti.^y (30) days of the issuance of this Award to initiate a tr=tment pizn:er deaiingwth his de^r,ression; 2) E.-1P must cerdiry to C.ur:er :hat Claimant is cleared for return to worn. if so reinstated. '`Last Chance' means that Claimant will be subject to dismissal for .'utuze proven v'oiarions of Rules 1.13 and 1.15, but there is no 'Naive: of his

AWARD NO. 149 NIvM CASE NO. 149 UNION CASE NO. 20154 COMPANY CASE NO. 1287405 contractual rights under the System Agreement-Disciple Rule.

    1) Claim sustained in part and denied in part, as indicated in the Opinion of the Board.


    2) The thirty (30) day peried for Claimant's compliance with the EAP ref.-Tal specified in this Award shall rm :-om the date of execution by a majority of the Board.


                  Dana Edward Eischen, Chairman


                b~


Union 11-(ember Company Member

 3