Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU ST=iT BOPJ%D lorard "?o.
8128
SECOM DIVISION Docket No. 8002
2-;aPP-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular rnerfaers and in
addition Ref eree Herbert L. Marx , Jr. when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 117, Railway Fmployes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Cabmen)
( Western Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Enployes:
That Cayman D. R. Edmards was unjustly discharged from the
service of the Wes tern Pacific Railroad Company in violation of the
rules of the Controlling ig1°ecment by letter on February L1,
1977 as
a result of investigation held I'ebruary
8, 1977.
That accor(-i-ir
Iy,
the ;%Tes ter n 1wcific Railroad Con,nany be order ed
to reinstate Ca=an D. R. Ed;iiards to service with
pay
for all. ti_r2e lost,
with all rights and fringe benefits unLnmired.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustnent Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or e-nployes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the rieaning of tho
Railway Labor Act as a~.)nr owed June 21 , 1934
.
This Division of the Adjust:nen_t Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute warred r.ght of apnearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was subject to a properly conducted investigative hearing
concerning charges of:
1. "unauthorized absence on time card day January 25, 1977 and
January
30, 1977"
2. "sleepi rg during your reg~.-1wr tour of duty on time card day of
January
27, 1977"
a
s to the second charge, the Cl ai-ant awi tted during the i nvestig ative
hear-',.ng that he had been sleeninCa_ri:ig duty hours. _jis excuse concernin:r
a pain-"u_1 E.zih? a i^ i nsuL'ficiernt, Since he -'a-de no effcr t to advise hi:;
supervisor of any such incanaci ty.
Form 1 Award No. 8128
Page 2 Do;:het ITO. 800?
2-WP-Cl.t-
t
79
When this is we-I shed against the Cla-imant's disciplinary record, no
exception can be taLen to the Carrier's decision to ter:i;inate his sei-'rices
on this occasion. TI1-is record sho~.,rs eil,t a!monitorny 1~,tters in le:;s than
two years, including(; five for the same offense of
sleeping, an duty. In
addition,, the record shows a r enoval f rcn service and leniency reinstate:ient
only four months previous to the current disciplinar-r action.
In view of this, review of the first charge ;. i ~..lr:^%1ter~al, although
it appears that the Claimant did report off on the two days in question but
failed to foLIow the procedure with which ho ~;~s pro
perly expected to be
familiar.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATICTr"T RLIL3~01_'D
t?=cr"",,q7,.;*1, p~
<D
Dy 01'd''-r
U'l' NecU'_ad
Zi~.'J'.:_sion
Attest: Executive S ecretar;T
National ~,~.a_lroad t:d.~'u,^t.:en~ Bu^~rd
D, y~. . .`:`.''-.-.~...-'t-~`~---'~,
~'~-...;. ~.:~=:`~.__ _ ._:;'~`"'_-~.,.--~...
,.~<;OSF":~,Y'ie
3;~.~;Cit - _-.~:i:_ ~.li~v~:'~'G~Vce
riu';;~_5tN:1.
Dated at Ci1icwgo, Illinois, this27th day of September,
1979.