PUBLIC LAW BOARD LSO 5850
- Award No.
Case No. 19
(Brotherhood of-Maintenance of Way Employes
P R~ TIEsS TO DISP tT - _
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fc Railroad
STN'fLMLN1 OF CLAIM.
Carrier's decision to dismiss Eastern
Region Maintenance
of Way employee D. W
Irvin, effective May 9, 1995 was unjust
Accordingly, Carrier should now be required to reinstate the claimant to service with
his seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all wages lost from May 9,
1995. (95-11-105!50-13A1-951)
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record and all the e,-idence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier
and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly
constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to
this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
On April 3, 1995, Carrier directed the following letter to the Claimant:
"...This is to advise you that, effective April 3, 1995, your seniority and employment
with the Santa Fe Railway company is hereby terminated pursuant to the provisions
of Letter of Undcrstanding dated July 13, 1976 for being absent without proper
authority for more than rive (5) consecutive work days beginning March 13, 1995
forward.
If you dispute the action taken hereinabove, you may, if you desire, request to be
Oven an investigation under the provisions of Rule I3 of the current agreement. Such
request for investigation must be made to this office at the address noted below within
twenty (20) days from the date of this notice ....
If no request for investigation is received in my office within the twenty day period,
the matter of your employment termination will be considered closed ...."
Page l Award No M
' Case loo. 19
Claimant responded to the termination letter requesting an Investigation, which was held flay
1, 1995.
Following the Investigation, Carrier reaffirmed its decision to terminate Claimant's seniority
and employment
Rule 22(b) reads as follows.
"Absence due to Sickness or Injury. In case of absence due to sickness or
injury the follo~vtng shall apply.
Msa*w
(2) When the expected absence is to exceed ten (10) calendar days, the
employe must present a doctor's reconmtcndation to his supervisor within the initial
ten (10) calendar day period, to avoid being absent without authority ...."
Appendix No. I 1 provides that an employee absent more than five consecutive work days
without authority will have his seniority and employment terminated.
Testimony of Claimant at the Investigation established that at no time from May 13 through
April 3 did he furnish Carrier a doctor's statement attesting to his illness.
Combining Rule 22(b) (2) with Appendix No. 11, it is clear that although Claimant may ·. ery
well have been ill, he failed to discharge his obligation under Rule 22(b) (2), and in accordance with
the provision of Appendix No. 11, Carrier's tennination of Claimant's seniority and employment was
proper.
Page 3 Award No
k9
Case No. 19
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made
Robert L. Hicks
Chairman & Neutral Member
C. F. Foose Greg Grit
Labor Member Carrier Member
Dated
03M