Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROLU ADJJST1=N1' BOARD Award No. 8189
 SECOND DTr1SION Docket No. 8115
 2-CR-EW-'79



Parties to Dispute; ( (Electrical Workers)
 (
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 Dispute ; Claim of Fnmloyes-.,









Findings:
The 'Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon Vile whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the enploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 2i., 1931+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board. has jurisdiction over the dis1,-ute involved herein.

It is the position of the Organization that the Claimant was unjustly dismissed. The Organization contends that the Claimant -ras inproperly refused a postponement of the investigation wh:'_ch wras sought on the basis that he had only '6 hoars notice of t1ie pend:.ng investi=`:ati cn and thus he d4_d not have a 'Lair opportunity to nrepare a deferxe. it is further contended by the Organization thavt the ~'°,_°rier denied the Claimant a full anfiir.!pa^t~a.l trial since the Claim.:,;.zt ,:,as restz'icted from, calling a- witness v;ro prest~r`:Jl~r would have testified in. his behalf. Finally, the Organization contends, tnat had the fax°~i.er's representatives on the r)ropertY been no^e concern erL :;hey would have de-6ermi ned that the C_~::.a,`!:~ant vras sick and that that was the reason for his leaving the premises.

 It is the position of the Carrier that, the Claimant received a full and impartial trial rind that his guilt was proven at said trial. Tile Carrier further contends that ';,1za discipline aosessf-d I-ras co=ensu=art;e with

 the offenses committE.:d and that the discipline of the Carrier should not be disturbed by this Board.
 Form 1 Award T,,,o. 8189
 Page 2 Docket No. 8115
 2-C R-E1,d-' 79

 Although, there is some conflicting testimony in the record regarding the Claimant's whereabouts between the hours of 8:40 a.m. and 7.x:30 p.m., i t is clear that had the Claimant been at or about his place of assignment that he would have had the opportunity to see or talk with his foremv.n. It is undisputed on the record that the Claimant did not seek permission from the appropriate foreman, or for that matter any Carrier representative, to leave his work assignment. Thus, although the record does not support a finding that the CI.Lmant was not attending to duty between the hours of 8:x+0 a.m. and 12:30 P-m-51 the record does support a finding that the Claimant did in fact leave the premises of the Carrier without seeking proper permission.

 It is true, as the Organization contends, that when the Carrier's foreman saw the Claimant standing by an elevator at or about 1:00 p.m. with his jac'::et over his shoulder, the Carrier's foreman could have approached the Claimant to detex-mine what his intentions were regarding completion of his work assignment for that date. iiovrever, that i s putting the burden on the wrong party. If the fcrer^an observed the Cl ainant then it is reasonable to assume that the Claimant also saw his i'ore=an at or about that time and could have, without significant difficulty, advised the fore,,ran that he was leaving the work site and he may have received pexznission to do so.
regular and timely manner by em ^loyees on duty. !'he actions of the Clai::_wr:t,
 if followed by others, would create a nearly impossible problem for the
 Carrier in schedaling 0 -
 ~ d completing work. Since the Clairr:ant did not advise the foreman that he vas leaving t._e premises, the Carrier was unabl e to seek others to complete the work assign-rent of the Claimant in this instance. Under these ciret~-_stances the Claiilant was appropriately charged and found guilty of the above-cited offense.

 Addressing ourselves now to the qtaestion of whether Claimant received a full and fair hearing, the above-recited chronology of events indicates that the hearing/investi ga,-tioii was schcdu:Led four months pr--',.or to its finally being held. The char es brou-,a against Claimant were first noticed to him by letter dated Septeyber 23, 19`117. At no time during the course of the several post ponez:ients vas the na.t=j_,.,e of the c~,ar~:, or :.n fact the wording of the charge, ch an gad. Thus, ::~zen the ~lai::~:.nt comp l a:.tnad at the hearing on rebruwnf 17, 1678 that he did. not have adequate tune to prepare a defense his plea fell on deaf ears. '?ad the Claimant been sufficiently concerned about the nature of the charges against h: ; :, he certainly -v?ould have made arrancre-ems to natie :~7itnesses availablF: and to prenaY'e his defense in sufficient ti.~:e. A x°ftv-iew of the trial records indicates that the Claimant did, in fact, receive a ful-l and impartial hearing.
 Form 1 Award No. 8189
 Page 3 Docket No. 811.5
 2-CR-EVd-' 79

 Therefore, this Board finds that the Carrier's determination of guilt was justified; that the Claimant received a full and impartial hearing; and, that the Claimant's prior disciplinary record justified the extent of discipline imfosed in this case.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ®.-~s~!'t-='.--.2....f, .,.. .-~:,.~-.-
    --~os(marie 3rasch - .Lc~r_nist1,:4- wVe Ass:~stC~ .ut


Dated atGhicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November, 1979.