The Organization contends that the Claimant was disabled and presents ample information proving the Claimant's infirmity. The Carrier took no issue with the fact that the Claimant was indeed unable to work,due to his infirmity. The Carrier does, however, take issue with the Claimant's inability to contact and inform the Carrier of his infirmity. The nature of the Claimant's alleged illness is not a mitigating circumstance which would render the employee totally incapacitated to the extent that his employer could not have been notified.
Rule 27(b) is quite specific. It mandates that the employee must notify his supervisor and receive permission for any type of absenteeism. Certain exceptions are provided under the rule for failure to notify a supervisor of an absence, but the record does not support that any such exceptions would apply in this case. The employee failed to inform his supervisor or any Carrier official of his infirmity, and absented himself from work for more than 14 days. This is a definite violation of Rule 27(b), which is self executing.
` Such absenteeism, without notification to a supervisor, is tantamount to an employee's abandonment of his employment with the Carrier.Rule 27(b), as its terms expressly indicate, is a self-executing provision that calls for forfeiture of all seniority. This Board has no authority to modify the language that both parties have agreed to in this Rule.