Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD
Award No. 8101
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7898
2-CR-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Bernard Cushman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
109,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A, F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dismte: ( (Carmen)
(
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of PnTloyes:
(a) That the carrier violated the controlling agreement when on
November
24, 1976,
it assessed five days actual suspension,
November
29, 30,
December 1,
2, 3, 1976,
to Welder Desmond A.
Donovan, ConRail Repair Facility, Reading, Pennsylvania, as a
result of a hearing and investigation conducted on November 11,
1976.
(b) That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Welder
Desmond A. Donovan the five days actual suspension as well as
any other compensation the Claimant would have earned during the
five day period he was serving his discipline; and further that
the Carrier remove all record of this discipline and that the
Claimant's service record be restored unanzpa iced.
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 or exnployes 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.
The Claimant, Desmond A. Donovan, was employed by the Carrier on May
5,
1974
and at the times relevant to this dispute was employed as a Welder at
the ConRail Repair Shops at Reading, Pennsylvania. By letter dated
November
3, 1976,
the Claimant eras notified to attend a Hearing and
Investigation on Novenber 10,
19`76.
The Hearing and Investigation related
to the Claimant's absences from work and tardiness and took place on
November
15, 1976.
Thereafter., the Claimant was given a five day actual
suspension by the Carrier.
Form 1 Award No. 8101
Page 2 Docket No.
7898
2-CR-CM-'79
The November
3
notice provided as follows:
"In accordance with Rule
34
of the former Agreement between
Reading Company and System Federation No.
109,
B.R.C. of U.S.
& Canada, you are hereby notified to present yourself for
hearing and investigation in connection with your attendance
record from July
6, 1976
through November 1, 1976, to determine
your responsibility, if any, in this matter.
The Organization contends that the hearing notice did not meet the
precision required by Rule 34. Rule
34
provides, so far as pertinent:
"No employee shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by
designated officer of the Carrier. Suspension, in proper cases
pending a hearing, which shall be prompt, shall not be deemed
a violation of this rule. At a reasonable tare prior to the
hearing, such e2uployee and his duly authorized representative
will be apprised in writing of the precise charge and given
reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of necessary
witnesses. An employee shall be given a letter stating the
cause of any discipline administered; if suspended, the
suspension shall date from the time taken out of service. If
it is found that an ern_ployee has been unjustly suspended or
dismissed from the service, such employee shall be reinstated
with his seniority rights unimpaired, and carapensated for the
wages lost, if any, resuitin,-, from said suspension or dismissal,
such loss being the difference between the
anount earned
if
otherwise employed and the amount he would have earned in his
regular assigment."
Our review of the record shows that the Claimant had adequate notice
of the matters which were to be investigated and our review shows further
that the record of the hearing abundantly supports the Carrier's finding
that Rule 22 -ryas not comalied with and the absences with which the Claimant
was charged in fact took place. The record shows that the Claim-ant did not
notify his Foreman of impending absence or delays as early as possible and
that many of the absences were not for valid reasons. "Family business",
"lawyer's appointment", "forgetting to set the alarm clock", are not good
and sufficient reasons for unauthorized absence of tardiness. It is clear
from the record that the Claimant fully understood that the notice was
charging him with excessive absenteeism and undue tardiness and that he
was adequately notified since each absence and tardiness was specifically
noted in the Notice of Investigation and Hearing. There was no showing
that the five day suspension was excessive or arbitrary or inappropriate
on the facts of this record.
The claim is, therefore, denied.
Form l
Page
3
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award
ro. 81ol
Docket
rTo.
7898
2-CR-CM-'
79
A W A R D
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTPMNT
BOAR:
By Order of Second
Division
By ,.c-~...
1 _Jt'~.s
o emarie Brasch - xdmini strative Assistant
Dated a'~..Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September,
1979.