Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAIM Award No. 7657
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7420
2-PFE-CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert G. Williams when award was rendered.
( Railway Employes' Department
( A. F. of L. - C. 1.0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Pacific Fruit Express Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when it
unjustly and improperly dismissed Carman-Painter Leonard R.
Arvizu on March 29, 1976 following investigation held March 18,
1976.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Carmen-Painter
Leonard ft. Arvizu to service with all seniority rights, vacation
rights, and all other benefits that are a condition of employment
unimpaired and with compensation for all time lost plus 6o annual
interest. Also reimbursement for all losses sustained account
loss of coverage under Health and Welfare and Life Insurance
Agreements during time held 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 are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Rail-may 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.
By letter dated March 29, 1976, Claimant was advised by letter that
he was discharged from Carrier's service as a result of a hearing held on
March 18, 1976 where he appeared under the charge of excessive absenteeism.
We find this dispute to be without merit for both procedural and
substantive reasons. Firstly, concerning the substantive appeal of the
claim, we find that Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and
that he vas responsible for excessive absenteeism over a several month
Form 1 Award No.
7657
Page 2 Docket No.
7420
2-FFE-CM-178
period preceding the hearing. We have repeatedly recognized the seriousness
of excessive absenteeism in this industry, and will not fault management
when it takes effective measures to control it. Claimant here was repeatedly
tardy and/or absent from his assigrnnent, and several previous warnings
from his supervisors apparently had fallen on deaf ears. Further, the record
shows that on May
6, 1974,
he was reinstated to service on a leniency
basis after being discharged for the very same repeated offense - excessive
absenteeism. Given all the .foregoing, we conclude that management has been
more than patient and lenient with Claimant. Consequently, we find his
dismissal from service totally justified.
Having reached the conclusion that the claim is without merit, it is
unnecessary that a determination be made on Carrier's procedural complaint.
See Second Division Award No.
4820.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August,
1978.