Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMMIT BOARD Award No. 7348
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7242
2-MP-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of
r. - C
. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the ,Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated mule 32 of the
controlling agreement when they unjustly dismissed Carman Apprentice
M. L. Aldridge, St. Louis, Missouri, from service on March 13, 1975.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Carman Apprentice Aldridge for all wages lost since March.
13, 1975 until he is returned to sex-,rice with all vacation and
seniority rights unimpaired and be compensated for all other benefits
he would have received had he not been unjustly dismissed from 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 :Tune 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.
Claimant entered the employment of Carrier as a Mechanical Laborer on
October 24, 1973, at Dupo, Illinois. In February 1974, Claimant was transferred
to Carrier's Barton Street Shops in St. Louis, Missouri, as a Carman
Apprentice. He remained in that position until his dismissal on :arch 13,
1975.
Claimant was off sick =with a stomach problem from Decerfoer 17, 1974 until
February 12, 1975. He was in the hospital from
_1
ebruary
4,
1975 until
F ebruary 11, 1975.
On January 29, 1975, Carrier's Master Mechanic sent Claimant a letter
notifying him to report for formal investigation on February 5, 1975, to:
Form 1 Award No.
7348
Page 2 Docket No. 7242
2-MP-CM-'77 r,rll
"...
develop facts and place responsibility, for your
failure to report and protect your assignment as
Caiman Apprentice at Barton Street Shops since December
16, 1974, and a review of your work record t,rith regard
to absenteeism."
The investigation, scheduled for February 5, had to be postponed until
February 25 since Claimant was in the hospital. It was again postponed from
February 25 to March 11, 1975 because Claimant had failed to procure proper
representation.
As a result of the investigation held on March 11, 1975, Claimant was
dismissed effective March
13,
1975, "account your responsibility in connection
with your excessive absenteeism, while employed as a Caiman Apprentice, Barton
Street Shops, St. Louis, Missouri, since February 25, 1974."
The record before us indicates that Claimant notified Carrier both
directly and through another Carman Apprentice (Kenneth L. Hatchett) that he
was sick on December 17, 1974. However, there is _no indication that either
Claimant or Carman Hatchett informed Carrier that Claimant was seriously ill
and would be out for an extended period of time.
Claimant allegedly tried to contact Carrier's General Car Foreman on two
(2) occasions after December 17,but was unsuccessful. Yet, when he went to
the General Car Foreman's office on December 29, 1974, to pick up his pay -
check, Claimant apparently made no attempt to discuss his absence since
December 17.
As a matter of fact, Car Foreman McPherson had to ask Claimant why he
was not working, to which Claimant merely responded that he was sick.
These facts do not excuse Claimant's failure to protect his assignment
from December 17, 1974 until January 29, 1975. At the very best they may
excuse Claimant for being absent on December 17 and 29, but that is all.
Now, Carrier waited until January 29, 1975 to hear from Claimant before
sending out the Notice of Investigation, but to no avail. However, contrary
to Petitioner's argument, we find that Claimant was not damaged in arty manner
by virtue of the fact that he was not charged until January 29, 1975. None
of Claimant's substantive rights were violated.
Moreover, the record indicates that Claimant was absent 41 percent of the
time from February through December 1974. Also, when Claimant did come to
work during this period of time he failed to com-_lete a full eight
(8)
hours approximately 51 percent of the time.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7348
Docket No. 7242
2-iVIT-CM-77
Claimant failed to notify Carrier of these absences or latenesses on
numerous occasions, and was repeatedly counselled with regard to his
absenteeism record.
When an employee is so consistently and habitually absent over a long
period of time that his employment becomes a serious liability rather than ar.,
asset, Carrier is entitled to terminate his services.
An employee may be absent from his work so much of the time as to
become, in effect, a part-time employee. Carrier is entitled to insist on
reasonable attendance. While an employee may be perfectly capable of doing a.
job, the job does not get done by him if he is not there. The Carrier is
entitled to have an employee who will get the job done. The interests of the:
other employees and the Carrier must outweigh the personal interests of
Claimant.
It is obvious that if all employees were so unfortunate as to be unable
to work to the same extent as Claimant, the Carrier could not continue
operation, and the economic well-being of all concerned would be defeated. If
Claimant is only capable of being a part-time employee, he should become one.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
B'
-%ri ~...
..o emarie Brasc~ - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of September,
1977
,"do