Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7228
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7047
2-L&N-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee C. Robert Roadley when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
91,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Carman J. R. Dunavent was unjustly dismissed from service in
violation of the current agreement on May
16, 1974,
and
2.
Accordingly, the Louisville; and Nashville Railroad should be ordered
to
(a) Restore J. R. Dunavent to service with seniority rights,
vacation rights, sick leave benefits and all other benefits
that are a conditi.0n of employment unimpaired and compensation
for all lost time plus
6°%
annual interest.
Reimburse J. R. Dunavent for all losses sustained account of
loss of coverage under health and welfare and life insurance
agreements during the time held out of service.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The claimant was charged with excessive absenteeism from his regular
assignment as a Carman at Decoursey and was dismissed from service, after
formal investigation, on May
16, 1974.
The record shows that he was originally
employed on August
12, 1964,
transferred to Decoursey on March 1,
1965,
and
established his seniority as a Carman on January
27, 1970.
Form 1 Award No. 7228
Page 2 Docket No. 7047
2-L&N-CM-'77
Petitioner seeks a sustaining award on the grounds of procedural defects
in the conduct of the investigation in that the officer conducting the
investigation, the Master Mechanic, made a prejudicial statement concerning
the charge against claimant. Petitioner averred that this statement, together
with other improprieties of the Master Mechanic during the investigation,
show conclusively that the claimant had been adjudged guilty of the charge
before the fact. With the exception of the following statementand other
improprieties were challenged at the time of the investigation and removed
from the record of the investigation.
Statement of officer conducting the investigation:
"The reason you have been called in to the office concerning
your absenteeism results fromthe fact that your absenteeism
exceeds that of any other carmen employed at Decoursey, during
the years 1972 to April 18, 1974, and none of your sicknesses
have resulted in one day's hospitalization. That's all I
have."
There appears in the transcript of the investigation another statement,
made by the claimant's supervisor, as follows:
"Q. Would you please give what information you can concerning
Mr. Dunavent's absenteeism and your handling with him concerning
this matter.
"A. He was absent 79 (times) in 1972, 113 days in 1973 plus
a 30 day leave of absence, total 143 days. And in 1974 thru
April 11th, absent 50 days. I gave Mr. Dunavent a letter
11/22/1971 and also 2/2/73 about his excessive absenteeism
and received from him on 2/6/73 statement that he would do
better. I have had him in 'the office several other times and
talked to him about his excess absenteeism. Each time he assured
me he would do better. But records speaks for its self that he
didn't do much better. That's all.
"Q. On November 21, 1972 I had Mr. Dunavent in my office and
you and Mr. T. F. Polley, Local Chairman, Brotherhood of Railroad
Carman of U.S. & C. were present and Mr. Dunavent's excessive
absenteeism was again brought to his attention. Do you recall
that meeting?
"A. Yes."
This latter exchange was not refla.ted by the Organization.
It is to be noted that during a period spanning approximately twenty
eight (28) months the claimant had been absent from duty a total of 272 days
and had been cautioned in writing and verbally on more than one occasion
concerning this matter. Appearing in the record before us is a statement
from the claimant's doctor covering the period in question. This statement
Form 1 Award No. 7228
Page
3
Docket No. 7047
2-L&N-CM-`77
shows a total of twenty (20) visits by the claimant for treatment, one of
which covered thirty (30) days off work due to a-fractured bone in the
left hand, for a variety of ailments.
In view of the fact that the alleged improprieties of the official
conducting the investigation were stricken from the record, with the exception
of that official's statement quoted herein, and the fact that the discipline
was assessed by the Division Superintendent who reviewed the record and not
the officer conducting the investigation, it is our opinion that the challenged
statement, in and of itself, was not sufficient to deprive the claimant of a
fair and impartial investigation. While we do find that the investigation
demonstrated that the Claimant was guilty of the charge it is the opinion of
the Board that the penalty of dismissal was excessive in this case and that
it has served its purpose. The Claimant is put on notice, by this Award,
that it is necessary that he maintain a reasonable attendance record in the
future and it is expected that he will live up to that obligation. In this
regard, we direct that the Claimant and his representative meet with his
immediate supervisor to reaffirm and remove any doubt in the mind of Claimant;
what his obligations are regarding his attendance conduct. For the reasons
stated we will order that the Claimant be returned to service without back
pay but with all other rights unimpaired.
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March, 1977.