Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8103
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7911
2-C&O-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss
when award
was rendered.
( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That carman-tentative, Amos Bostic was discriminated against
account being unjustly dismissed from service as result of
investigation held in the office of the General Car Foreman,
Walbridge, Ohio at
9:00
a.m.,, Wednesday, February
9, 1977.
2. Accordingly, Bostic is entitled to be reinstated and to be
reimbursed for all back wages lost from the date of February 18,
1977
until final settlement of the case 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 employe or 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 on April 18,
1977
following investigation held
February
9, 1977,
on the charge of excessive ab=senteeism and tardiness.
Petitioner contests the dismissal on the grounds that Carrier's action
was arbitrary, capricious, unjust, and "far too severe". In support,
Petitioner cites Rule
37
(Discipline and investigation Rule) and the multiple
roles of the General Foreman in that he notified Claimant of the charges,
conducted the investigation and assessed the discipline, hence denying
Claimant due process.
A reading of the record discloses no violation of Rule
37
nor of
Claimant's due process rights in that no bias was evident in the hearing
officer's conduct of the investigation.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8103
Docket No.
791.1.
2-C&0-CM-'
79
The record before us also indicates that Claimant's attendance and
tardiness record vas less than satisfactory. During the period cited in
the letter of charges, from December
13, 1976
through February
3, 1977,
encompassing
47
work days, Claimant was on vacation for 10 days. He
was absent
23
days of the remaining
37
days during that period.
Claimant was represented at the investigation by the organization's
Local Chairman and Local Vice Chairman, but he did not show up for the
hearing. Claimant had been arrested on the job on January
6, 1977,
after
reporting for duty one hour late that day.
Claimant's representatives stated at the hearing that they had
received no word from Claimant. They acknowledged that Claimant's attendance
record was poor and that the investigation had been fairly and impartially
held. Neither Claimant nor his representatives requested a postponement
of the hearing.
The record also discloses that Claimant had previously been disciplined
for excessive absenteeism and excessive tardiness. Petitioner has not,
on the record before us, denied that Claimant was guilty of the charge as
filed. Accordingly, based on the uncontroverted evidence before us, we
will deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSThENI' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
0,4
o *emarie Brasch - tLdmir'i~2strative Assistant
Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September,
1979.