Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILRO9D ADJUSTMETIT BOARD Award No. 796 j'
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7857
2-CR-EW-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin TM, Lieberman when award was rendered,
( System Federation 1,To. 1, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of Z_ - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute:
( (Electrical Workers)
(
(Consolidated. Rail Corporation
Di spate : Claim of Er^arloyes:
1. That under the terms of -the controlling agreement Electrician
Charles f. lAalver was unjustly d:i.smissed from the service of
the Consolidated Rail
Corporation
on February 1
5
1977.
2, That, accoxwdi.ngly, the Carrier be. ordered to reinstate Electrician
Charles J. F'tt7-.ve.r to his former pos~.vion with seniority rights
unimpaired and compensation for all lost time,
Fa.ndin
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
-Vf
-thin 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 z~ra.s dismissed on February 1, 19`17 for being "Absent without
permission
December 8, 1976 through January 7, 1977 inclusive". The
investigative hearing was held on January 26, 1977 withoat Claimant being present. The evidence at the hearing indicated that Claimant had ex-pres;sed
a desire for a six months leave of absence but such leave had not been
granted and he simply absented himself i,rith.out permission. The record
indicates that there was no denial of Claimant's absenteeism at the hea,r:iz:4;.
Petitioner, as its basic position, asserts that Claimant was denied a
fair trial by virtue of Carrier's z"allure to notify Claimant of the date of
the trial. The record discloses that Carrier sent Cl a:L-nWnt a TToti.ce of
Investigation, dated
January
7., l9-7'7, to attend an investigation on
January 19th. That notice i~ras sent by certified inai.l and received. On
January 19th the heari ng Torras convened and Claimant v-as not present. His
representative requested, in writing, a one Week's adjourmzent, which z~ras
granted. Subsequently this adjourriment was confirmed in writing to all
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
79&7
Docket No.
7857
2--CR-:fit^T-'
79
concerned, including Claimant. Claimant did not appear at the rescheduled
hearing, as indicated above. At no time in the course of either the hearing
or the subsequent handling of this dislTate on the property was the issue
of improper notification raised by Petitioner, It is patently improper to
raise such an issue at the late date of the submission to this Board,
There being no procedural issues of consequence, the only materz.al
question is that o:£ substance; the evidence is quite clear that C1ainant
was guilty of an unauthorized absence. With
respect
to the penalty of
dismissal, -this Board has pointed out on numerous OCCa;;ions, that
vn
this
industry in particular,. gross absenteeism is highly disruptive to the
proper operation of a rail-road a,rna on all counts is intolerable. For this
reason we cannot question Carrier's detexTnination of penalty. The Cla "_.m
must be denied.
A TAT A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOT~I.n~L RAILROV~.D AbJIJSTH-KU BOARD
By Order of Second Division
o«Oxnar:ie t3rasch - Adrlinistra,ive Assistant
Dated ~ Chicago, Illinois, this lath day of June,
1979·