Form 1 NATICKAZ RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8157
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8068
 2-CR-CM-'79


Department, A. F. of Z. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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.

Claimant was observed by carrier's Supervisor of Personnel fzL'ly undressed under a shower head in the shower room at approximately 2:38 p.m. on July 2, 1977. This was prior to the completion of claimant's shift. Claimant was charged with quitting early and leaving his assigned work area prior to the scheduled quitting time of 2:50 p.m. An investigative hearing was held and claimant was assessed a 45-day suspension. The organizatiot:i protests this suspension on the grounds that carrier failed to cite a rule infraction in the charges against claimant.
 Form 1 Award No. 8157
 Page 2 Docket No. 8068
 2-CR-CM-'79

 A review of the record reveals that claimant was in the washroom, cleaning up prior to the completion of his shift. It also reveals that he did not have permission to be there. It can only be concluded from the record that claimant was attempting to wash up early. Other employees were also observed in the washroom prior to the end of the shift, but no charges were brought against them.

 The act of quitting or leaving a work assignment prior to the authorized quitting time constitutes a theft of time; discipline should result. This board need not elaborate on the justification for discipline in such situations. It should be apparent to both parties.

 Carrier suspended claimant 45 days for this infraction. It based its decision on the length of the suspension on claimant's prior record (a five day suspension for insubordination). An award by this Board in Docket No. 8067 upheld this suspension. It also based its decision on the severity of the instant infraction.

 Based on the record before it, this Board concludes that a 45-day suspension is too severe a penalty to impose. Carrier is certainly aware that, on many occasions, this Board has stated that it would not substitute its judgement for that of the carrier when violations are proven and discipline is reasonable. It should also be aware that this Board has consistently recognized that employee discipline should be progressive and viewed as corrective in nature, not punitive. While Claimant's past record should b e considered by carrier in the assessment of a penalty, the record before us reveals that there was only one incident of prior discipline. The penalty imposed in that case was a five-day suspension. We find it, difficult to justify a 45-day suspension for a second infraction as ,a reasonable escalation in a progressive discipline procedure.

 Carrier could have made its point in this case with a suspension of ten days. This level of penalty would b e more in keeping with the progressive discipline procedure that should be employed by carrier. Claimant should not, however, read this reduction of penalty as a vindication of his action. It is not intended in that light. Claimant should also realize that he is fast developing a very poor work record; further rule infractions or insubordinate behavior may result in far more severe discipline than imposed in this instance.

'the 45-day suspension should be reduced to a ten-day suspension. Claimant shall be reimbursed for time lost beyond the 10-day suspension.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 8157
 Docket No. 8068
 2-CR-CM-t79

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM= BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _~ r
      o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October, 1979.