Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR Award No.
7729
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7611
2-N&W-FO-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 16, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F, of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement A. L. Vance, Laborer, was
unjustly dismissed from the service of the Carrier effective
June
7, 1976.
2. That accordingly the Carrier b e ordered to reinstate this employe
with seniority rights unimpaired, vacation rights unimpaired,
made whole fox all health and welfare rights including Railroad
Retirement and unemployment insurance, and pay for all lost time
retroactive to June
7, 1976.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox carriers and the employe ox employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing therein.
Claimant was charged with being absent without permission between
the hours of 11:00 P. M, and
7:00
A.M. on
may 3, 1976.
Carrier avers that such absence reflects failure to comply with
agreement Rule
23
which states:
RULE
23
- DETAINED FROM WORK
"An employee desiring to be absent from service must obtain
permission from his foreman. In case an employee is unavoidably
kept from work, he will not be discriminated against. An
employee detained from work on account of sickness or for any
other good cause shall notify his foreman as early as possible."
Form 1
Page
2
Award
No. 7729
Docket
No, 7611
2-N&W-FO-'78
An investigation was held on May 11,
1976
pursuant to Agreement Rule
19 to determine the merits of the asserted charge and Carrier shortly
thereafter notified Claimant by letter, dated June
7, 1976,
that he was
dismissed from service.
This Board has carefully reviewed the adjudicative decorum of the
May 11, 1976
investigative proceeding to insure that Carrier complied
with the letter and intent of Agreement Rule
19.
We find nothing in the
record to suggest that said hearing was improperly conducted.
Claimant had an obligation to comply with the requirements of Rule
23
and he didn't in this instance. We are mindful of the many times an
unforeseen event precludes an employe from observing precise notification
standards, but in this case we are not confronted with an analagous problem.
We believe claimant could have complied with this rule.
Claimant had been given three
(3)
investigations in the past for
similar type infractions and was clearly cognizant of the attendance
imperatives. He did not choose to follow them.
We think that some form of discipline is required in this case, but
not .permanent dismissal. Claimant has suffered emotional and financial
loss since his dismissal on June
7, 1976,
which we must assume has been
remedially beneficial. It is expected that he will have changed his ways.
Claimant must understand, however, that this is his last chance and must
prove that he can diligently adhere to the appropriate attendance rules
and procedures.
We will restore him to his position, but without compensation for
lost service.
Claim sustained to the extent expressed in the opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Byy
~o~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of November,
1978.