which was granted. He did not return to duty on July 13th but was advised several-times that if he required additional time off it would be necessary that he fill out and submit leave of absence papers. Claimant again contacted Roadmaster's clerk on July 20, 1981, advising that he needed leave of absence papers. The documents were forwarded to him to his home address, along with the advice that they should be filled out and promptly returned with an accompanying statement of support from his doctor. The leave of absence papers were never returned. Subsequently, claimant admitted that he had left the papers with his doctor for completion. As a result of this action on the part of claimant, by letter dated August 5, 1981, he was notified that his seniority and employment were terminated due to his being absent without proper authority.

It is clear for the record that claimant was negligent in following the prescribed rules which were relevant to his absence. Instead of filling out the leave papers, he left them with his physician and they were not, indeed, completed until long after the fact. Thus there is no doubt but that from a strict point of view claimant was guilty of a serious infraction and was, indeed, absent without proper authority. On the other hand, it is also apparent that Carrier was aware of-the basis for claimant's absence. He had informed Carrier that he had suffered an accident and that fact was later demonstrated by the submission of various medical reports. The petitioner argues persuasively that the provisions of the agreement dealing with absence without leave (the July 13, 1976, letter of understanding) did not purport to deal with employees such as this. That agreement was designed to handle

_2_