C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-08126.htm

Form 1 NATIOi1AL RAILROAD ADJUSTIIEITIP BO,"J?D Award uo. 8126
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7998
2-CR-Cry-' 79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert L. :,:arx, Jr. when azaard was rendered.

( System Federation No. 109,, Railway Employes' ( Department, A. F . of Lo - C. I. 0. Parties to Disn_ute: ( (Carmen)

(

( Consolidated Rail Corporation

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

(a) That the Carrier violated the controlling agreement when, on May

6, 1977,

it assessed ten day actual suspension to ;"elder, James 14. Drscoll, ConRail i~°pair Facility, Reading,

Fxa.,

as a result oz hewriml; and inv-:Dsti,-ation con--Luctcd on !~,pri1

7, 1977.

The ten-day actual suspension ~; s Vay

10, 11 , 12, 13, 16,

17, 18, 10

and 20,

1977.

(b) That accordin7ly, t?le Carrier be ordered to cazrensate v"lelder

Jades i % !fir-.coh T.hc ten d

-v

s actual sus nensi

oI:

as well..

2,s

any

other ccu_'a_)enca'1i'cn 15tle clai'"._°.nt vould have earned during the ten-

day perf_cd lie -cas service the discipline; and further, t:1wV the

Carrier rer.~ove all record of this disci oli"ne and clwin_ants serer'-ce

record be resto.red, red.

Findings: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the ea~ploye or eriployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and r~:r~loy a within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved ~une 21, 1934.

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

Parties to said dispute era"ived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant received a ten-day actual suspension because of his "unsatisfactory attendance record" durinthe period frc:n Sc~Dternaer 29, 1976 th:·ac:. h ,',.arch 15, 19'77. 1n its let'u~-rs prior to the Li1L't'"s'v_r-, t'_ve hea'1'in , the Carrier cites 23 separate instances 9.n which the Clairant i"gas absent, late or left early. The investigative hearing; ~s conducted in a fair and prorer manner, and the record shoos little or no evide=e to contradict the Carrier's charge and later detexinination that the Clainant's attendance record .'ras unsatisfac;,orT,y. Form 1 Award No. 812( Page 2 Docket No. 7998
2-CR-CM-'79 Both the Carrier and the Organization refer to Rule 22, which reads as follows:

"In case an employe is unavoidably kept from work he will not be discriminated against. An e,-.qploye detained from worn on account of sickness or for any other good causes shall not_f'yi=is foreman as early as possible. When knos,rn, e.:plo;,we- are expected to make advance arrangements if necessary to be absent."

There is no evidence that the Claimant -;~,.s "discriminated against", and the record shows instances of his failure to notify his forman "as early as possible" as to absence or tardiness. As held in many previous awards, Rule 22 cannot be used as a defense for generally unsatisfactory attendance. See Award No. 77 0.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

PTATIOML RAILROAD ADJUST1'=-,1T BOARD

By Order of Second Di ·t~.sion Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board os=:arie rasch - r~d.~,anistrative Assistant Dated at Chicago, III.iziois, this 2 7 th dad,- of Septe::ber, 1979.