Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7804
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7639
 2-CR-EW-1 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)

Dispute: Claim of Thployes:












Findinqs

 The Second Diva_^9.cn of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier o?^ carriers and. the emnloJ a or emp'loyes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and cenpl.oye within the meaning of the Rai 1irr,y Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

This :is a discipline case :in which E_'_eca.rici n I`i. r. Sholtis was
 dismissed from service i'o11o,~: ln~r a heax?:i.n;, in absentia, on the charge:





        2e Being' absent fYV:m duty zaithor:_t pek~:ni.ssion on ;,*.ak'ch 14,

                                                ,

            2 a.,-zct 24, ?_J`77G

Form 1 Award No. 'j804
 Pale 2 Docket No. '; 639
 2-CR--EGd- '79
 "3. Using 'pain' as a result of a personal injury received
 while on duty at a._~;xox:im.a:tely 7_:00 AaTi, Cn J\p1,i1 6,
 1977 ~,s an excuse to be absent f_,,-am duty 'the same date,
 alti?c'o. h ;you vTo r'h:d at Three 1.1'12.1'12c Isl an. d, 14iddleto-vni,
 1'a,. fro_:i 8:00 a.m. to x+:30 p.'-'1. the sane date, April
 6 19 77a"
 ,

 At the he.°°xxir':~; Cn_e,:ir:a.rxt`s Union lepx'eNe:~-ii;r'ta.ve was p_:·;:sent and participated throughout. However, Claimant elected not to appear. Before the Board, petitioner i;.us argued that the er;Hre pxoceed.:i.nwas improper and. should be decl^.ycc3 null and void because Claimant was not pcrw:Ittei to choose his own xe7rec en'c.a,tVe, and, in any event, Carrier did not substantiate the charges Ds made.

    The a,pplicabo_e :-^al a in -this case prov0des in pertinent part:


        "if he desires to be xe:px'e::ented at sxtch txi`-.:1_, he may be

        cNCCOn?pa

            , r:1C=v. by his UY1:u.o.1 ?.^e px2.`,'E,`HS,'G7_VO'..0i'.--Y_o!t


Fro,,. .`';~ ~a Board that C1<:;,'!n:7.i T indicated a desire zo
 n ;~ (,.__ record t:, 3oaxd. .~t ihave the Lo^a1 Cha7>:_.a2'' f,: . L, i''1.111d:LS ) 1.'CT!1:'t.'SEIn't )=J.-I?. 11vTC?VC'Y', MUr1E71: at
 the, time ':: .;~ }!OSp._'iraZ_1nCa and had designated the Local .L'x'...'>1.denT.
 BY_t.uCh) to handle matters dc ~ :~.'
    `~ ,. 1x'i.Yl_~'.Yl_~ 'G::,t period. AN previously ir.d:i_c<~;,(^_j,

    _ s.,

Breach was present fox' the SCi?GC.''411.ud hearing and. participated in .i.~.

 Petitioner's contention in this regard :is not VTel1. t_v':..an. The day-to
 day functions of loth. the Carrier and the Local Ur..-:.os:i c4unct 1>e irustx·ated
 by the unscheduled, unforeseen absences of ons of the Local Union 0~':c:'c.~;s.
 ThE: record shows that local Presidant Breach had previously participated in
 the 1nVE'Sta_Ea:.1V a hearing which precipitated charge ''J. 1, and that he:
 actively a,?"1.o~ ~-,'_ _(_~,· it p:x-x'ta-~. _·.rg -T"~- 1 in
            ',oi'rZ_e~i.·,~.e~1._ _c~?.'i;ed ,.. in the i:`.. n -cuct l resulted the dismissal. Yetiticner has failed to show that Claimant's rights were

in any way jeopardized or that the clear _~:,n~ ,t_.~. of the applicable Ru_e
 was V1Gla'ur`ad. Therefoye, the Board must deny the contention in this regard.

 Petitioner further alleges that the statevcnts introduced into the hearing on Isy 24, 1977, from the Clark-Receptionist, Medical Officer and from the Carrier's Police Officer amounted to hearsay evidence and therefore were :inadmis scble. niaile the b;'f;tex procedure would h?.z°o. teen to have the two Carrier employes offer direct testimony at the healing, the Board cannot say that the S'''1,~,'1LfJ..i~:UY1tS, in thEN:>:;1ves, are '
 · --irzCi;_usa'be. As stated -n
 Award Wn 7347:
 "Such written statement .s not a 'fatal' defect, but is,
        subject to the same 3_in:itat;i_ons as other forms of

        hearsay evidence, namely vu:i1e it nny be admitted, it

        should. be carefully ,-rc:i.y,hcd, once admitted, for its

        probative value.

                    _

Form I Fag e 3

 AVrax°d. No. 'j8o4,
 Docket To. ?639
 2.-cD-.Ma.-' 79

 On 'lie merits, the heating J'ecoz°<? contains sub2tantial evidence,
 in;::l.ud:irzg C1a:i.zant's ozrr, a.w~,:s,s:i.ons relative to the ttn:;ali't11C?'.Zed. absences
 o the throe dates .n question, ~ , ~.t the ~
 n. ~,: in to r ` .~ ~ conclusion '(..7.sion that discipline
 was both jtzst:i.:%'i cd. and. x'c<~a:i.):f.:d.. Tire;^e li5 9 hc~ove..'cy no eva.cia ?o.ee in th.e
 record to z.tzd:ic::=,v;;. te_wt C:1_;::i, .._it has hid. any prior aLsessment of discipline.
 Therefore, in this case the hoard :ce;De.:t:_ the pcinc;Dla set: forth in Th-*7.rd
 MY Mon Avraxd i-,`o. 1953 ( wil:? ch says:

 "Discipline gCk1eY''t.',~_R..~' 112,5 Gh;r.'C:~.~ ~~;aa7..5: T~I~.fl:?..~:'?i_?n't of an
 E'I:lp.i_C);'ey COIx'GC;'LO:'J and 'G J" a1Y1'.'_ r!t'., a7. the C:'.., ONC> and a~,' an
 (rX`dx-ciplC'. for training purposes for other unTloyes ....."

 and give C1a.:i.na?2t one last chance to de_,:.mictraae that 1:·e desires to cant'.1.nne
 his employment relationship w~.'l.n. Carrier nn.d Ma nust recognize,
 however, that )'C;~oa':W1 unauthorized Mse?:(.`Cs d'?(. Caltt_.1L,ed "outside
 0:11117~ Ciymc,r'it'i t0 the di?'liL° .....ax'.'i;. of Carrier can and will result in permanant
 dismissal (See Second .u)1'V'.LciC:1i !i;·ct.X"d ~'IGs L`~`70),

 Accordingly, the Board will order that Clairant by reinstated to service with seniority unirTnirad, but without pad for time lost.

 A 1-? A i; T)

 Claim _
      SuS't3.'_i r?~d. as per F''! nd.:! YigS.


1`Th`1'TC!v AT RI`,~i:TR0A'f) A;iJJUS'.1.'"?;I::.1: BOP.i'u

By Order of Second Division


West: ExeMANY secretary
 National. f;ai:Lvoad Adjustment ~Aoard

      c`C1lCc ;O, f.L'aOis, this 10t"L%°., of' Fanua.~, 1979.

Dated 'w;