Claimant timely requested the Investigation, after which, the Carrier reaffirmed its termination of Claimant's seniority and service with the Carrier.
Appendix No 1 I clearly spells out the remedy if an employee is absent without authority in excess of five consecutive work days. The employee's seniority and employment is to be terminated It does not provide any area of compromise, A good work record, years of service. etc , cannot be considered.
Claimant was absent without authority from February 13 through February 23, a period of nine working days
Claimant at the start of the year, 1995, requested a ninety day leave of absence which was declined. He then asked that lie be allowed to take all of his vacation, 20 days, which was granted Claimant, who prepares and submits his own payroll, completed the second half of January payroll requesting 12 days of vacation, January I ti through 31. He then submitted a payroll for the first half of February asking for 1 I days of vacation, but the payroll clerk caught the over claim of the three extra days, February 13, L4 and 15, and it was not paid.
Claimant knew he was entitled to only four weeks (20 days), yet did not explain the excess claimed, simply saying he thought he was on vacation through the 17th of February.
On the 17th, he contacted the maintenance clerk and stated he "wouldn't be back and go ahead and relieve the job." He further stated that after he had called the maintenance clerk on the 17th, he still thought he had 5 days.
Obviously, Claimant was fully aware of Appendix No. I 1 and the consequences of being off in excess of 5 consecutive work days, and that he thought he could still be off without authority until
Page 3 Award No. 1Claimant was wrong. He was due back from vacation on the 13th, not the 29th, as he thought. Nor did Claimant contend he was misled as to the vacation due him. He knew he had only 4 weeks vacation (20 days)
Why or how Claimant became confused as to the vacation due him and when he was to report to work is an unknown Claimant did not furnish any evidence of any circumstances that would permit this Board to mitigate the termination even though the burden was upon his shoulders to do so. Without any valid explanation, the record stands that Claimant was off in excess of five working days without authorization. Pursuant to the terms of Appendix No. 11, Claimant's seniority and employment was properly terminated.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.