C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07898.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIRO_A-D ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7898
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7730
2-C&o-CM-t79

The Second .Division consisted of the regular. members and in addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.

( System Federation No.

Railway Employes'

( Department, A. F. of Z. - C. I. 0.

Parties to Dispute; ( (Carmen)

(

( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

Disrnzte: Claim of F,mployes:

1. Clan:

That Cayman-Tentative, Edward E. Banks was excessively disciplined when dismissed from service &s result ox" investigation held in the General Car Foreman's office at Walbridge, Ohio at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October

13, 1976,

in violation of Rule

of the Shop Crafts Agreement.

2. Accordingly, Bards is entitled to be restored to service with

- seniority rights uniznpa:ired, reimbursed for all wa es last,

coverage under health and welfare and 1a.'"e insurance agreements

and all other benefits accruing to e~lu

yes in service, co:=enci

z2g

November ZO,

1976

until such time settlement is reached.

Findings: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the eiruploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railm-ay 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 thereon.

Claimant was dismissed from service, after an investigation, on charges

of failure to protect his assignment, excessive absenteeism, excessive tardiness, and falsifying a request to be absent ;a-· with permiss-ion. During the 43 consecutive days immediately preceding filing of charges; Claimant was absent from his assigned shift on 17 days and worked 1_esa than a full 8-hoax day on 10 days, During this same 4Z-day period, Claimant reported late for work on 6 days and on 5 days, left work before the end of his shift. On several days, he either failed to make report concerning his absence prior to the starting time of his shift or made no report at all. Form 1 Award No. 789$ Page 2 Docket No. 7780 2-C&O-CM-' 79 A careful. review of the transcript of the investigation discloses no evidence submitted by Claimant that his absences and tardiness were due to being "detained from work on account of sickness, or for any other good cause" as provided by Rule 22 of the Agreement. At the hearing, Claimant stated he could not remember the nature of the illnesses for which he was absent; could not remember the name or address of the doctor with whom he had an appointrnent; offered as an explanation fog his tardiness in reporting for work or in returning on time from his lunch period the statement: "I overslept;" and refused to state the nature of the "personal business" for which he marked off. The record also discloses instances of prior discipline fox', among other charges, excessive absenteeism and being absent without permission, fox' which Claimant had been round guilty. Finally., between the date of the hearing and the date of his dismissal-a period of 21 workdays-- Claimant was absent 7 days and late on 6 other days. Carrier has shown leniency in the past for proven transgressions, by giving Clai,Ynant an opportunity to mend his ways. A review of the record, cited 9.n same detail supra, leads us to conclude that Claimant has not responded to the opportunity to improve his attendance record. Carrier's action in dismissing C1a3nant from its service is suppox'ted by the record and we w-ill not mode fy it. We will. deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP.1ENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Sacretary National Railroad Adjustment Board ?-c.~.- By 1 ~c r~-~-,, G_ _ ol~-ernarie Bx'asch - Auministrative Assistant Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April, 1979.