II ~


Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6358
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6146
 _ 2-UP-MA-'72
 - The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 105, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Machinists)

Dispute: Claim of Empl9y(~s



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, involved herein. .

The claimant eras charged with leaving the property 25 minutes before the end of his work shift-without permission in violation of Rule 702, Rules and Instructions of the Motive Power and Machinery Department, and also with signing his time card to show completion of his full working time. There was no objection to the hearing which was duly held after notice to claimant. At the hearing, claimant stated that he had not received permission from his supervisor to leave his point of duty, and that he had. left to get a tool which he had asked for several days earlier, Tr. p.4.

Form 1 Award No. 63 g

 Page 2 Docket No. 61~
 2-UP-MA- 72

        The result to be reached.in this situation rests upon the limitation upon

this Board to change the Carrier's decision made after the hearing, or the discipline
 which was imposed; and the extent to which Rule 702 is controlling. Consideration must
 also be given to Rule 3006, Rules and Instructions of the Motive Power and Machinery
 Department, raised by the Organization as a defense, -which states: "Em ployes must not I
 leave their place of work to go to other parts.of the shop or plant-, without permission
 from supervisor, except on company business." .

 Although the policy of this .Board.set forth in manyy Awards recognizes that the Carrier's decision will not be disturbed if there is substantial evidence to support it, this does not mean that we may not examine the facts. The Carrier asserted that the claimant had signed. a time record which did not disclose that he left early. It appears that there is a practice of filling out the time record when the employe reports for duty, expecting that he will complete his-full-work shift.. The record of the hearing and the discipline imposed does not appear to stress this. The Carrier also states that claimant left in his street clothes, in his own car and proceeded to a point.off the property in the direction of and close to his home. Claimant answered that he was in the clothes he wore while working that day :and that he left the property and was near his home becuase the usual route on the property to-the old roundhouse was blocked by a train. The Carrier's officers who had followed claimant believe that he turned to the roundhouse instead of going home because he saw at that point that he was being followed. This is an assumption which is denied and has no basis in fact.

 We believe that the violation, if any, depends upon the interpretation C "the Rules. Rule 3006, which requires permission fron a .supervisor to leave a place of work,, except on company business, suggests that the business be related to work then being performed or business of the company which cannot otherwise be.conpleted. Claimant's action does not faU into this exception. He had asked for the tool several days earlier. Leaving his point of work on this day was not a continuation of work or of company business which required action at that moment. There is no evidence that a . supervisor was not available. Latitude to leave his work any time he pleases on so called, "company business" is not available to claimant under this exception.

 Rule 702 requires proper authority to be absent from duty-. We believe that the General Regulations of which Rule 702 is a part, controls this situation and that the exception of Rule 3006 is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence that claimant had committed a violation and we are without authority to upset that decision.

 Claimant was given an opportunity to return to work on a leniency basis by Carrier's letter dated August 10, 1970. This would have resulted., in effect, in a . loss of approximately 90 days from May 13, 1970 when he was removed from service prior to the hearing. Carrier continued. its offer by letter dated September 9, 1970, after claimant failed to answer. Claimant rejected the offer of reinstatement by letter dated October 1, 1970. On October 2, 1970, Carrier repeated its offer of reinstatement to the claimant, and in addition stated that it would be without prejudice to the claimant's right to pursue his remedies (to vindicate himself or to reduce the penalty). Carrier repeated the offer by letter dated. November 9, 1970. After an exchange of correspondence and further oonference, claimant rejected the offer by letter date( February 25, 1971.
 ·Award No. 6358
 ocket No. 6146
 L"ge 3 2-UP-MA-'72

 Claimant had the right to adhere to his position and to seek complete exoneration from the charge. By his rejection of the offer of August 10, 1970, however, the C,:rrier was releived of any further possible liability. The Carrier's offer of October 2, 1970 gave claimant the right to return to work and at the same time continue his fight to clear his record and to recover back pay. The return to work on a leniency basis would not be considered as an admission against his interest (without prejudice). This was an ideal position for the employe to be in; he could. have his cake and eat it too. The rejection of this chance to earn his bread and still redeem himself, is difficult to understand and provides a strong temptation to allow the Carrier's decision to stand.

 In our discussion, it was conceded that the dismissal with a later return, to work on a leniency basis is not actual dismissal but the device used. as a substitute for a disciplinary suspension which is not provided for by the Agreement. Treating the dismissal as a suspension, there is room to reflect upon the extent of the appropriate penalty. Confining ourselves strictly to the facts produced at the hearing and the employe's good record as it appears in the exhibits, an appropriate period of suspension from work without pay would be 60 days.

 To sum up. We have not permitted the claimant's refusal to return to work to influence our Award. These are acts after the hearing and dismissal. Claimant
 rs entitled to refuse although we question the wisdom of his_decision. Any monetary seniority claims terminated as of August 10, 1970 when he was offered reinstatement. He delayed unduly in responding to this offer. The Carrier was not obligated to send rp-inders or to improve the offer as "without prejudice". Claimant shall receive rata pay and no loss of seniority for the period starting with the 61st day from ___ May 13, 1970 until August 10, 1970. No other benefits shall accrue frcm August 11, 1970 until such date as he may return to service. Reference is made to prior Awards: First Division, 13142, 14447, 15764, 16483, 16534, 19033; Second Division, 6215.

                        A W A R D


        Claim disposed. of in accordance with findings:.


                          NATICNAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest:
          Execut v Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July, 1972.