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 matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Claimant's seniority was terminated pursuant to a Letter of Understanding dated July 13, 1976, for being absent without proper authority for more than five (5) consecutive work days.
Pursuant to that understanding, the Carrier simply writes Its termination letter and, as also provided for In the Letter of Understanding, should the recipient of such letter protest the termination, there is a twenty day window to request an Investigation. Usually these Investigations offer the recipient one last chance to salvage his career by offering evidence that his absences were authorized or that he was in such a dilemma that he could not reach anyone in authority to secure permission to be off. The burden of proof, usually the
r p-,e ,Vd,srrs~responsibility of the Carrier in dlscipiinary hearings, shifts to the Claimant in this type of Investigation.
This case is somewhat different in that Claimant, according to the Carrier, failed to timely and properly request an extension to his leave by furnishing a statament from his doctor as he was instructed to do. When Claimant did not furnish the required statement, the Carrier wrote the termination letter.
Claimant sufferod an on-duty injury In 1980, and has not worked since. In 1984, Claimant furnished a doctor's statement stating he was to be returned to service as soon as possible. At tails juncture, the paper trail ceases to exist. It appears to this Board tha, although Claimant has requested the leaves in his own behalf, he has done so since 1984, only a2 the Cnrrierr's advice that he should to protect his seniority. Claimant, apparently, has haen 1nerlicaily disqualified by the Carrier. If there is any other reason for not acting upon claimant's statement of well being in 1984, it has not been made part of this record.
if Claimant has been medically disqualified by the Carrier, then surely he cannot be held responsible For a failure to apply for extensions to his leave, On the other hand, If Claimant initiated the request for a leave, which was granted by the Carrier, then he does have the obligation to seek timely proper leave extensions.
However, with the record before this Board it is evident that Claimant's absencq has Vaen authorized by the Medical Department when they did not act upon his 1984 certification of fitness to return to service. Under this scenario, his absences have been authorized.
Claimant's seniority is to be reinstated, Claimant's return to service Is, however, continent upon medical certification to determine If he is of sufficient physical well beinff to r esunae fuli duty. There Is no pay for time lost.