Form 1 NATION R..·~yu.'.":?.Ja?~!iSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7501
SEMT"'-,"=SION Docket No.
7268
2-C&NW-BM-BK-'78
The Second Division consisted of-!~>he regular members and in
addition Referee Walter C. Wall ace when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
76,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - CI. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Boilermakers-Blacksmiths)
(
( Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That, in violation of the current agreements, Welder J. N.
Sorenson was unjustly dealt with when on date of October 31,
1975, the Carrier assessed a dismissal from the service of
the Carrier, effective November
7, 1975.
2.
That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to return Mr. Sorenson
to service immediately with:
(a) All seniority rights unimpaired.
(b) Compensation for all lost time at the prevailing rate of
pay, plus
6°%
per day until date of payment.
(c) Make him whole for all vacation rights.
(d) Pay all premiums for hospital, surgical and medical benefits
for all time held out of service.
(e) Pay the premiums for group life insurance for all time held
out of service.
(f) Be allowed all other benefits that he would have been entitled
to have had he not been taken 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 axe 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.
Form 1 Award No. 7501
Page 2 Docket No. 7268
2-C&NW-BM-BK-'78
Claimant was a track welder headquartered at Tracy, Minnesota. He
has service of 27 years,.-without disciplinary infractions on his record. He
and his helper traveled to Watertown, South Dakota to perform welding
work there and they spent September
29
and 30,
1975,
at Watertown hotels
at carrier's expense. When they ran out of acetylene at 8:00 a.m. on
October 1,
1975
the Maintenance Foreman advised them to return to Tracy
on orders of the Roadmaster because there was no further work for them at
Watertown. They continued to work on chairs until
10:30
a.m. when they
went to the hotel, gathered their possessions and departed for Tracy where
they arrived at
2:00
p.m. The helper was dropped off at his home and
claimant returned the truck to the depot and went home.
The claimant's assignment was to report at
7:30
a.m., take one-half
hour for lunch from noon to 12:30 P.M. and work until x+:00 p.m. Claimant's
time report for October 1,
1975
reflected he had worked until x+:00 p.m.
when, in fact, he had not. The charge against him stated the investigation
was to determine:
"your responsibility for in connection with absenting
yourself from duty and falsifying report of time
worked on October 1,
1975.".
At the hearing claimant did not deny that he had left early on that
date and he had not completed the full shift. The excuse he advanced was
to the effect he was not paid overtime for the travel of approximately
120 miles and it was the practice of leaving early to accomplish this
travel. He also contends such practice was known to carrier officials.
This was denied but not with such emphasis that an objective review of the
record will not raise questions concerning the vitality of such a practice.
To his credit, claimant was candid in admitting he had gone home
early. Nevertheless, an employee of his long service must be charged with
the questionable nature of such a practice. We conclude he was not able
to sustain his burden of establishing the practice he advanced in his
defense.. We are not inclined to second guess the carrier when it reaches
a conclusion in a disciplinary matter, particularly where there has been
a full opportunity for a fair hearing and the position it adopts is
supported by substantial evidence. In this instance, we might hope for
more but it cannot be said the minimum requirement has not been met. It
follows that we cannot assert with arty confidence that there is a basis
for overturning carrier's conclusion. We do hold the contract was not
violated.
However, we believe the carrier went too far in its punishment in
this case. Under the circumstances we believe the claimant has received
sufficient punishment. We are mindful of carrier's right to make a total
review
of
the employee's record when it assesses the penalty. We do not
question that right. We are more inclined to question the values it
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7501
Docket No.
7268
2-C&NW-BM-BK-'78
attaches to the matters outlined in the record in this connection. For
instance, we will not take cognizance of the rumored alcoholism of
claimant. No disciplinary action has been advanced against him and whether
or not that is a root cause for the alleged absenteeism is speculative on
this record. Moreover, his credit problems may be irrelevant unless it
affected his employment relationship. As for his absenteeism, the
allegations are extreme and if they are valid it raises questions why the
carrier did not take appropriate disciplinary action long ago. Apparently,
it did not and we do not believe it can advance such accusations effectively
at this late date. For all these reasons we believe this employee should
be restored to service, seniority unimpaired, without back pay. We would
urge the carrier to further counsel this employee on his problems so he
will be alert to the fact that further infractions may result in more
severe punishment.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
. semarie
Bxasch
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of
April, 1978.
Administrative Assistant