Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
77+8
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7630
2-CR-EW-178
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Enployes:
1. That under the current agreement, Electrician Maximo Martinez was
unjustly dismissed from service on date of July 23,
1976.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to reinstate Electrician
Martinez to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired
and compensation
for all lost time.
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 ox employes involved in this
dispute are 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.
Claimant was dismissed from sex-Tice on July
23, 1876,
following an
investigative hearing on the following charges:
"Unauthorized excessive absenteeism from your position as
3:00
P.m. to 11:00 p.m. Operator at Sub Station
#3
at
Tuckahoe, N.Y.
Days off: June 14, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28."
The Claimant was duly notified of the hearing, but did not appear. A
representative of the Organization appeared For his defense.
No
evidence was
provided to contradict the Carrier's charge of absenteeism.
Form 1
Page ?_
Award No. 7'l48
Docket No. 7630
2-CR-EW-'78
The Carrier's disciplinary action comes hard. on the heels of .previous
less severe .penalties for ttze same offense -- a 30-day suspension on hay
24, 1976, following a hearing on May
4,
1976; and a 60-day suspension on July,
22, 1976, following a hearing on July 13, 1976. The Board finds no flaw in
the Carrier's exercise of ,progressive discipline in the case of an employe
with an unsatisfactory attendance record.
In its submission to the Board, the Organization argues that the penalty
is unwarranted. because the Claimant followed the provisions of Rule 22 in
connection with his absences. Rule 22 reads as
fOllOws:
"Rule 22 Absent From Work
An employee unavoidably detained from work on account
of illness or for ether good and sufficient cause shall
notify his foreman not later than the close of the first
dales of absence, if possible."
Since this argument was not made on the property, it cannot properly be
made for the first time before the Board. In addition, it would be a
misreading of Rule 22 to use it in defense of the employe's actions in the
present case. The provisions of Rule 22, z~,hatever other purposes they may
serve, are not a defense against chronic absenteeism. As held many times
before the Board, the employer has a might to expect regularity in attendance.
There are no mitigating factors in this dispute to modify this general
principle.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'I1~ ~,
:'r
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
_,.o-
~'~semarie i3rasch - AdT111L1iStY'a'~,;1V-C Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of Nove~nbex, 7.978.