with a copy to the applicable General Chairman. The rule goes on to provide for a procedure to appeal from the forfeiture pursuant to Rule 25, Section 3 if made within 30 days.
The Organization did appeal well within the appeal time limit. The appeal letter asserted that claimant's inability to work was due to medical reasons and went on to request a hearing conference pursuant to Rule 25, Section 3. That conference was conducted on July 1-2, 2008. It is clear from the Carrier's denial letter dated July 29, 2008, that a letter from claimant's treating doctor was provided to the Carrier. That letter was dated June 10, 2008 and included an explanation of claimant's diagnosis and treatment. Significantly, the letter explained how claimant's condition accounted for his failure to report for work and his failure to notify the Carrier about his condition.
There is no proper medical evidence in the record to challenge the content of the letter from claimant's doctor.
The Carrier cited the findings of Award No. 25 of Public Law Board 6564 in support of its position. However, our review of that award establishes that it was based on significantly different facts. In that case, the employee became absent on July 15, 2002. Nothing was heard from him or on his behalf until the following January. No appeal was undertaken within the time limit.
Moreover, it appears from the award text that no explanation for the failure to notify the Carrier was ever provided. Accordingly, the award has essentially no relevance to the instant dispute.
Rule 26(b) is clearly and unambiguously self-executing. However, by its explicit terms, it is also self-excusing when sickness, disability, or other circumstances beyond the control of the employee are established by the record. On the record before us, there is medical evidence to establish the excuse. Moreover, there is no conflicting medical evidence to create a dispute about the cause of claimant's absence or the characteristics of his condition that explained his failure to notify the Carrier. Accordingly, the forfeiture of his seniority has not been property justified and must be set aside.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is clear from the two letters from claimant's doctor that are in the parties' submissions that claimant was not able to work due to his condition. While the doctor expressed hope that effective treatment would allow claimant to return to work, nothing in the record before us establishes that claimant regained fitness for duty as of a particular date. Therefore, while claimant must be offered the opportunity to be reinstated to his former employment status without undue delay, he must satisfy the Carrier's usual return-to-work requirements before being reinstated. In addition, he is not entitled to any back pay or other economic benefits attributed to the period of time he has been out of service. The Carrier is directed to offer the reinstatement opportunity within thirty (30) days of the date shown below. Public Law Board No. 7104 Award No. 27