Upon the whole record and all the evidence, 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 matier, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Claimant was charged with vacating his assignment early on March 12, 2001, and with failure to protect his assignment on March 13, 2001, without proper authority, plus failing to follow Instructions. Serious cherpes that It proven, could bad to serious tine off it not permanent tarntinatbn.
flit out an injury report, then left the premises. He did call in on the 13'", and left a voice mail stating he would not be in that day and the reason was "the sane reason".
k appears the Roadmaater was attempting to impress upon the Claimant the necessity to work full days each day his assignment is scheduled as he had Instructed Claimant that if he wanted off, he had to contact the Roadmastar personally, not leave voice messages advising he would not be In.
Claimant appears to haw a problem protecting his assignment full time, hence the Roadmaster's Instructions of personal phone dialogue with him, but In this instance it appears that Claimant called in on the 9e' of March and left a message advising that he was not corning in because of 'a twinge on the right side of lower back" when he got out of the truck. Claimant also called In and left a message to be off on March 14 and 15. Claimant was not charged with being off without proper authority on those days, yet those absences were conveyed to the Canter via voice mail. Claimant was, however, charged with leaving his asaignment without authority on the 12'" and failing to report for work on March 13.
Claimant has a lousy attendance record, but this Is not the proper setting to address his absenteeism problem. He claimed he was injured climbing out of the truck on March tt. Me absence on March 9 was not questioned, nor his absences on March 14 and 13, nor has anyone questioned his injury, thus this Board accepts the Injury as being legitimate and that was the reason for CVlmant's absences. Regarding the charge of failing to follow Instructions, Claimant did have directions to call the Roadmester direct to receive permission to be off which he did not do. '