Form 1 1TATTONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi:2E_'IT BOARD Award No.
7541
SECO_,?D DZVISIO_'f Docket No.
7496
2-SPT-r4A-'
78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Arthur T. Van Wart when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dis-ute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Texas and Louisiana Lines)
Dispute: ,C lain, of Employe s
1. That the Southern 7acific Transportation Company improperly
discharged Machinist L. S. Taylor.
2. That ?.:D.chinjst L. S. Taylor's seniority be restored effective
D;avy 26 , 19'76
with all rights unimpaired.
Findings:
The Second Division. of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the
er;lN'x.o~r~
or enr;ployes involved in this,
dispute are respectively cs,yrier and emp''oyc within the meaning
of
the
Railivray Labor Act as approved i-ane ~,1.,
1.934.
This Division of the Adjustment hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was employed as a Machinist at Carrier's Running Maintenance
Plant in Houston, Texas. As a, result of a long period of absence and s,
physical a<mwniination g4-ve:n Cl*.ima nt he was ti~erel.'o.r instructed on April
l4,
1976,
to crei:ort j_'or duty within seven (7) days. Claimant failed to
respond thereto.
Clainant was cli~.r<;ed. writt~ absentin S hirself from his ass9~nment as
a D9achin:;t_st s1 nc~z: ;~,pril ._''~!-
1976,
and ,,J_ven c:.n i~z~F~sti,atio?: thereon.
He vas adjud,;'--,;ed -;;:ti_I_ty as cr'8_',e~ and fund
'iC)
violated
J7,u_2.e
83-C)
of the Rules and
.-
'':zti.CL1:~
of Ke Southern Pacific Transportation Company.
Said Rule, in pertinent part, provides:
"810. EnyloyeS
Yn_`t
report for duty at the psescrib
ed;
time and
plus,
remain at their
__ oft
o'^'
!l7
ty. and
devote the"'SClv`u exclu:,7_vcx_.r
t0 j.~Y;~-'1"
_`Lt-ies calrin7
their tour of duty.
The;;r n'ust not abs"rt tt'1'mse_fles
from tre:i.c:mploy.:ent without proper authority ....
Form 1 Award No.
7547_
Page 2 Pocket No. (L`-yo
2-SIT-P'ZA-' 78
"Continued failure by employes to protect their
employment shall be sufficient cans a for dismissal."
Claimant was accorded due process.
There was substantial evidence adduced at the hear-Lng to support
Carrier's conclusion a:; to C1aiW~ant's culpability. Clam=cant alleged
that his physical condition prEclucied. him from returning to work.
However, he f~:,il ed to provide any evidentiary support for such an assertion.
The burden
or
a "^
"L;ed. with him.
iY'
ca_ =lyin.= the defense
Y~:~is·7.
by ~:,l~i~.wntt~ia~.wnt re;~
He failed thereof. Carrier, on the other hanI, had given Claimant th
benefit of extensive uhy-sical exaL.!n:-,;tions by re;mutable piiysicians.
The result of such examinations was that Claimant's physic-,l condition
would not preclude him from returni n~E- to work. Hence, in such circumst':nce,
Claim-ant's ahserwce i:itho;~t au:,iioriL;r and his in.iluce to protect his c-.nioy
rnent provided the cause for h:';s dismissal.
Consequently, based on this recoYd and. considering ti:e length of
Claimant's absence from work, the Hoard conclude; that Carrier's deci:,-ion
to discharge Claimant was not arbitrary or ca.spr:i_cious.
Therefore, we will deny this claim.
A 1°7 .A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL ;AIh%;OA') :iDJOUUSTMINi' ~=·'O%:i-~)
3v Order of Second Divisicn
Attest: 1xecutive Secretary
National Railroad Ptdjustmont Board
By L ' r-
.- _ .? .. - :'._'~ . - ~__ _
--ltof cmarie~Brasci! - 1!c;~ain:i-:~-'tzU;:;:Ve r~ss.is~<>.nt
r
Dated it Chicago, 117_ino:i_s, this 10th day of ::':ay, 1_ 7d.
I