SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 94
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2257
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it notified Trackman R.
Stinnette that he had forfeited his seniority rights in
accordance with Rule 21-A (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-2257).
2. The Carrier will return the Claimant to service with full
seniority rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all
lost time from December 19, 1986 as a result of the violation
referred to in Part 1 hereof."
FINDINGS:
Claimant R. Stinnette was employed as a trackman by Carrier. On
December 13, 1986, Claimant was notified that Carrier considered
Claimant as having resigned from service under Rule 21-A of the
agreement, governing absenteeism without permission, because he last
had reported for duty on November 20, 1986, and Carrier had received
no further communication from Claimant. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging Carrier's application
of Rule 21-A.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that
the Organization has not met its burden of proof that the Carrier
acted improperly when it applied the self-invoking provisions of Rule
21-A in this case. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
The record reveals that the Claimant last performed work for the
Carrier on November 20, 1986. Be did not report for work or contact
the Carrier on any day thereafter until after the Carrier notified the
Claimant on December 13, 1986, that he was considered resigned under
1
q g~-9~
Rule 21-A.
The Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he
contacted the Carrier during those fourteen days or that he was unable
to contact the carrier because of circumstances beyond his control or
physical incapacity. Rule 21-A is common throughout the industry and
has been found to be reasonable by this Board in numerous recent
cases.
The organization argues that this case is similar to recent
Awards 57 and 73 of this Board. However, a review of the facts of
those cases demonstrates that, in both situations, the Carrier was
clearly aware of the reasons for the Claimant's absence either because
the Claimant had previously been on a disability or had been suffering
from severe mental problems beyond his control. In the case at hand,
although the Claimant argues that he was injured on the job on
November 16, 1986, and that was the reason for his absence, the record
does not reveal the same Carrier knowledge that was clearly present in
Awards 57 and 73. The Claimant had a responsibility of notifying the
Carrier of the reasons for his absence, and he did not live up to the
requirements of Rule 21-A. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Carrier Member U ~anizat`ion Member
Date:
2