A review of the transcript clearly establishes that Claimant had displaced effective October 14. He did not report on the 14"', nor did he report on the 151', nor the 16th.
Claimant's record reveals that in April of 2002, he was instructed by the Division Engineer to contact a certain Roadmaater if he was going to be absent It was the Roadmaster in the territory from which he had worked, not the Roadmaster he was to work under effective October 14, 2002, although he still was working In the same Division Engineer's territory.
On October 14 & 15, 2002, Claimant called in to advise he would not be able to work, but the employees he talked to were not in a position to authorize his absences. On October 16, 2002, he left a voice message on the Roadmaster's phone advising his inability to work on the 16"' because of car trouble. (He lives about 25 miles west of Galesburg).
There is no doubting Claimant was absent and that the absences were not authorized, but the alibi for the absences was that Claimant was suffering from a depression.
It was developed at the Investigation that Claimant suffers bouts of depression. However, the Carrier only knew was his absentee record starting in June of 1999, with three entries for being absent without authority. The third incident was less than 60 days from this incident in the third Incident, Claimant was assessed a 60 day deferred suspension.
The Carrier could have activated the 60 day deferred when they assessed the 60 day actual for this incident, but this did not happen.
2002, by the Division Engineer advising Claimant that he had to contact a Roadmaster unknown to this Board. In the letter were listings of both that Roadmaster's telephone number and his cell phone number. But, as of the 14"' of October as stated, Claimant did not work under that Roadmastees Jurisdiction. Claimant stated he did not know the phone number of the Roadmater he was to report to, and he claimed he did not locate that number until October 18"'.
If Claimant was suffering bouts of depression, it was not established by him during the Investigation. Under these circumstances, and considering that the Carrier did not activate the prior BO day deferred suspension, the Board accepts the Carrier's right to discipline Claimant as they did In this Instance.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Clalmant(s) not be made.