Opinion ID: 472272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lane and Snyder

Text: 6 Lane and Snyder contend that they were on uncancelled annual leave at the time the agency thought they had to report to work. There was, however, an outstanding order of the Pittsburgh facility cancelling all outstanding leave at the time of the strike. Lane admitted he was aware of that order but thought it was countermanded by a telegram from the agency which told him to report for work on his next scheduled shift (his previously scheduled shift was after his annual leave was to end). The presiding official disbelieved this explanation as disingenuous and correctly held that, in any event, Lane should have made inquiry in the light of the allegedly confusing signals. See Part I, supra. 7 Snyder signed the Pittsburgh order cancelling leave but says he had not read it. Like Lane, he too had received a telegram calling him back to work during the strike. The presiding official properly held that Snyder's testimony that he did not think he had to return during his previously authorized leave was entitled to no credence and that Lane was to be held accountable for knowing about the cancellation order bearing his own signature. 3