BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 924
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(former Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.)
Case No. 230
Award No. 2- 1
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it improperly terminated the
seniority of Mr. D. J. Seversen (Organization File 8KB-4982T;
Carrier File 81-93-41).
2. Claimant D. J. Seversen shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss
suffered.
FINDINGS:
On September 17, 1992, the Carrier received a request from the Claimant for a medical
leave of absence due to an on-the-job injury that he had sustained on August 10, 1992. The
1
Carrier denied the request for medical leave but informed the Claimant that it could
accommodate him with another position as a flagger that the Claimant could perform within his
medical restriction. The Carrier instructed the Claimant that he had to return to service within
ten days or forfeit his seniority. The Claimant did not report for duty and subsequently, he was
terminated. It was later learned that the Claimant did not report because he was in custody
having been charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
The Organization filed a claim challenging the termination.
The parties not being able to resolve the issue, this matter comes before this Board.
584 9A4 -Aw'
al y
This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant failed to return from his
unauthorized leave to the flagging position which would fit within his work restrictions.
Consequently, the Carrier properly found that the Claimant had voluntarily forfeited his seniority.
The Carrier is correct that Rule 54 does not automatically require the Carrier to grant a
leave of absence to an employee simply because an employee requests one. The Carrier has a
right to demand that medical documentation be provided and that the Claimant show up for work
to a position which could accommodate the Claimant's medical restrictions. In this case, there
was work available for the Claimant to perform in a position which accommodated his disability.
In addition, the Claimant was not absent from service because of his injury. It is apparent from
the record that he was absent from work as a result of the fact that he was incarcerated on a drug
charge.
This Board cannot find that the Carrier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously
when it terminated the Claimant's seniority in this case. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETE R. ME RS
Neu ber
Carrier Member ganization Mem'be~
DATED:
3-
/D
-5F
DATED: ~-/O ^`[~
2