?orzn 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7346
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7215
2-C&NW-MA-'77





Parties to Dispute:



Dispute: Claim of Employes:










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.



Claimant entered service of Carrier on January 19, 1972 as a Laborer. On February 16, 1972 Claimant was promoted to Machinist Helper, which position he held as of February 15, 1975. Claimant's work post is Carrier's locomotive repair shop at Oelwein, Iowa.

On February 14, 1975, Claimant was notified by Carrier that he would be required to work overtime on Saturday, February 15, 1975, since Carrier had to remove eight (8) diesel locomotives from storage and prepare them for service by February 17, 1975.

Claimant subsequently notified Carrier between 1:00 AM and 2:00 AM on the morning of February 15 that he was sick, and would not be at work that day. Claimant then missed both his overtime assignment and his regular shift on Saturday, February 15.
NOW
Form l Award No. 7346
Page 2 Docket No. 7215
2-CaNw-MA-77

When Claimant reported for work on his regular shift on Sunday, February 16, he presented a note from a local physician in Oelwein by the name of Dr. H. S. Jaggard. The doctor's note raised some question in Carrier's mind about the genuineness of Claimant's alleged illness. Therefore, Carrier attempted to contact Dr. Jaggard, but was unsuccessful. At that point, approximately 3:00 PM, Claimant was taken out of service pending investigation.

On February 19, 1975, Claimant was notified by Carrier to appear for a formal investigation on Friday, February 21, 1975, as he was being charged with "Your responsibility for your failure to properly protect a specific work assignment in that you did not appear for overtime duty at the Oelwein Shop on Saturday, February 15, 1975, at 7:00 AM as you were clearly instructed to do."

As a result of the investigation, Claimant -,~ms notified on March 4, 1975 that he was being assessed a 10-day deferred suspension, effective March 1, 1975. Claimant had also 'been held out of service without pay from February 16, 1975 through February 21, 1975.

A review of the entire record in the instant case convinces us that none of Claimant's substantive rights were violated in the hearing on February 21, 1975.

Moreover, there does seem to be substantial evidence of probative value that Claimant was guilty of failing to properly protect his assignment on February 15, 1975.

However, while recognizing Carrier's legitimate concern with getting employees to work necessary overtime assignments, nevertheless, we find that under all the circumstances of the instant case, that Claimant's offense does not constitute an "extreme case"' under Rule 35, justifying "suspension pending a hearing."

Therefore we direct that Claimant be paid at the applicable rate of pay for each day of work lost from February 16 through February 21, 1975.



Part 1 of claim upheld in part per findings.

Part 2 of claim upheld in part per findings.

.40
Forth 1
Page 3

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Award No. 7346

Docket No. 7215

2-C&NW-MA- t 77


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By J It._


Dated at hicago, Illinois, this 8th day of September, 1977
i

lqw

-40