Form 1 NATTONAL ItATLROAD ADS-UuTMF,";T BOARD Award T~io. 722
 SECOND DIVISIO'i3 Docket No. 753?
 2-C R-SM-' 78



Parties to Di.srnzte:


Dispute; Cla:i.zn of r7m;-~1_o;~es:















Fi_n<:ings: ,

 The Second Division of the Ad justznent Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the empl.oye or e_riployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the r1eaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division or" the Adjustment Board. has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On January 26, 1976 Carrier dismissed fe -16it:i_oner Sheet Paetal. Worker Wm. J. Ii:i_1d:.~bramt fro:n service for:
 Form 1 Award No. 7622
 Pag e 2 Doch.et No. 7532
 2-CR~-SM-' 78








Rule 2, cited in Vie order of dismissal as a basis for dismissal for tardy reporting i s the 8 hour a day work rule, ~7Yiile Rule 33 i.s relied upon by Carrier to support its absenteeism cYs.arge. Those two i~ul es of the agreement between Carrier and its Union Employes follow:

        Eight hours shall constitute a day's work. All employes cominf; under the provisions of this agree:nent, except as otherwise provided in this schedule of rules, ox as may hereafter be legally established beu.;reen the Carrier and the F.nploy es, shall be pai_d on the hourly basis."


                  _Rule 33 - Absence from Work


        In case an employe is unavoidably kept from work he vn-11 not be d.isc:r:wi:.linated a ~-&~.ris t. An e::iploy a d.cta.a ncd from vjOrl: On account O:~' S .CiLnE~C, or for a?'1~T other good cause, shall notify hi.s i'orewatl as early as poss:i_ble. UYnployes axe erected to :n~a>c advance ar:ra.nr-emen'cs :if necessary

        to be absent, when known."


On January 26, 1876, Carrier di.schared Employe SheE:-_,-b Metal Worker t^:m. J. 1-lildebrarzt for excessive absenteeism not excused by Ru.le 33, and late reporting for word in violation of the 8 hour zao?'kday Rule ieo. 2. This action i,-as tar>en v?ron the fo11c-,-ri txr~, work record.:

        Absenteeism on Sent. 26 Dec. 8, g, 10, 11, 12, 17 and a'_6, 1575.


        Tardiness in ,reporting for work:


        Sept. 26, 1975 .- -7~ hour late -woxked 7-1 2 hou xs

        Oct. 22, 1575 - ~~hour late -worked 7--~ hours

        Oct. 2~, g7~ '

            '' 1 ` - 1--s hours late -worl:ed 6-2 hours

        Nov. 20, 1575 - 1 hour late -worked 7 hours

        Nov . P4, 1575 - 1 hour late -worked 7 hou rs

        Nov. 28, 1975 - 1 hour late -worked '( hours

        Jan. 2, :1576 - 3 hours late -worked 5 hours

        Jan. 5, lg'l6 - 1 . hour late -worked 7 hours

Foam 1 Award No. '(622
 YaUe 3 Docket No. 7532
 2-CR-SIU-' 78

 In support of its drastic action, Carrier contends that Employe had received discipline on two ,prior occasions for the same charge during his two years of employment by the Carrier, and that his work habits did rat improve. Record, p. 34. Employe responded with a doctor's excuse for his absence from Dec. 8th to Dec. 15, 1;75, and stated that he got hurt on the job Dec. 16th as the reason for his absence on Dec. 17th, 1975 and that on Dec. 26th they had a lot of snow and that employe had an accident on the fray in to work, that; man. 2nd, 1976 the turnpike eras closed down and all the roads were packed with cars, and that the delays on other days were the result of traffic. R. 79, Employe also testified that he called the Diesel Shop in sufficient tire to report off (fine 33) on the dates of Oct. 6, 7, 17, Nov. 5, Nov. 19, Dec. 17, and Dec. 26, (Record, X30), and his tes'tio:onT on that point was corroborated by others (Record, 80).

 However, the record shows that hrnploye Hildebrant li.vcd 86 miles from his place of work, traveling that distance back and forth. each day, hampered by snow on coa.d winter days, but testified that he eras planning to make arrangements to stay in a rooming house four nights a week near the site of his jab, Record, 81.

 Mr. L. A. Fall:ow;;kp., Suet. Locomotive Shop, testified that Employe Hildebrant eras a very good worker in the shop ''vrhen he does work". I:. 81. J. Judge, Local CozwnitteEnan, Sheet Metal Workers, testified that I?Yni:1oT,°-2 Fivi:Ldebranv' s work "has always been very satisfactory and Ym. very satisfied with his work in the E'Fort Deisel Stop". R. 81..

    From the record, we find that Employe Iiildebrart is a good and

satisfactory worker :i n the shop, but with an unsatisfactory record of
 lateness (being late is not being absent). We find that absenteeism
 or lateness we:ce caused primarily by Employe living 86 miles from his job,
 his other problems caused thereby leave been intensified by winter snowstorms.

 We find that employe promised to find a roam near his work for four nights a week if hi s ernp:Lo;rRnent continues.

 Empl.oye' s coznp3.aint that he was denied. a fair hearing because Mr. Falkowslii eras the s,c;cus:i_ng officer, and the presiding and hearing officer, anal made reco?emendations for Employe ulildehrazzu,'s dismissal, has been held in other Board. case: to be insufficient, by itself, to ma?:e the holding of the Hearing Officer inva:Lid,i,oc :it certainly raises questions of objectivity oz: the hearing, and further questions of the severity of the discipline administered.

 Carrier's treatment of tardiness as a violation of Rule 2, the 8 hour rule, is denied. Of coarse w:. are not holding that when the Employe is an hour late that he must be paid for a hours' work rather than the seven hours he actually worked, nor rare we holding teat continual tardiness constitutes satisfactory service.
 Form 1
 Page Zz

 Railroad Transportation is an exacting industry.

 Award No. 762
 Docket No. 7532
 2 -c R-sr~s- `r,8

 Its continued

 operation demands high efficiency and dedication of all levels of workers and. executives wino engage in it. Without that dedication to promptness and efficiency, railroad transportation would utterly fail.

 In order to maintain that efficiency, we recognise the right of the Carrier to disci_~ai.ue Fmpleyes for infraction of the contract Rules agreed upon between the Carrier and 1^;r:ployes, to protect the rights of each, and to assure the safe and efficient operations of Carrier.

 We find that Employe reported off on the days he i;as absent. While this does not make excessive absenteeism blameless, reporting off reduces its gravity to that of a less nature.

    Under all the facts in this case, we find that the discipline

inflicted, that of dis.ii_ssa.l, a1^~ost total economic execution, to be
 excessive, and we order Claimwnt restored. to service with Lis seniority
 rights unimpaired witi 60 day," ` pay.

 We lack pourer to order C1ai?rant to use ,part of the 60 days' .pa.y to
 find lodgings near hi.s ,place of employment, to be construed as approval of
 the record of employe = n this cage, but since he is a good wor1:el:., its
 purpose is to give him an opportunity to :?wove in near his work, S-There
 sans factor
 y pexfor?:^a,rzce may be had.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained as modified by the Findings.

1dATI0TdAZ RAILROAD AP:7US'fi:IF-DIT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Fvail road Adjustment Board

 By

 . =-,Rosemaxie Brasch - Adrlini.t;t.ratitr~ ~.ssistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of July, 197t3.