Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ7JSiiar.-NT BOLA;:?.D Award IIO.
8191
SECOND DIVISION Docket i?o. 81.17
2-CR-BM-
' 79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Richard R. Kasher when award was rendered.
( System? Federation i\To. 1, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Disoute: ( (Boilermakers)
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute : Claim of ~r:rployes:
1_ That Boilermaker R. A. Cuaings was improperly dismissed from
service follo:ring investigation held on 3:lay
8, 1973.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to reinstate the afore-
mentioned Bo:ilex°naker, to serV~.ce ivrith all senor3_ty rid;?its
unimpaired, all lost zrages, Health and Welfare, Life Insurance,
Vacation and Holiday pay na~.r in effect and any additional
benefits that r~ay be negotiated as a result thereof until he is
restored to service.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the ev:i.dence, finds that:
The carrier ox c arrier. s and the enploye or eannloyes involved in this
dispute are respectiv;ay carrier and empl.o;,re within the meaning of the
Railway Tabor Act as z:;pproved d'ane 21,
:1_934.
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, a boilema_Ler, suffered an on-duty i.njur7 resulting in a
sprained left shoulder with bicep-ita? tend-eniti s. As w result
of
this
injury, the ~l~ws_~hnt z:;:.s under a Carrier doctor's ca-re betlreen the dates
of March
3, 1978
up and until at least April &, 191'8 at
-which
tine the
Carrier's i.=edical Department approved. the Claimant's return to service. The
Claimant was approved to _,-a turn to semi ce as of pri1 `T, 1978 and did
return to service on AnrJ_1 30,
1978.
As a result of the Claixiant's not
appearing fer service be`-ween tx"e dates of
April
7, 1978 and Anr-,l ;O, 1978
the Carrier charged tile Clwi.-an' .`~,ar:ith excessive absenteeism for the days
of his assig=ent vfn:Lch lie did not cover hek:ween April 8, 19,('e to ~~?il 23,
1978.
The Carrier cl_arged the Claimant -"-.ith unauthoril zed absence for his
aI I e,
a
r h
,ed failiire to Properjv in, ~ off fo~^ t:~Telve,
(~12)
full days of
unauthorized absence. A trial ,cws not-iced s.nd 1
cOld,
in absentia, and the
Claa.m.-,nt was dismis;;ed from seL-:ace by :-notice o:LC discplir:e dated Hay
17, 1978.
Form 1 Award No.
8191
Page 2 Docket )`To.
81-17
2_CR- Bj:i_'
7q
It is the position of the Organization that the Carrier's charges and
actions against the Clairiant were without foundation and were filed for the
sole purpose of d:i.:rissin,; t-le Clatmant4 The Or-anization fi`urther contends
that tire Claimant was irmroperly charged since he wa- absent from -,cork
Ls
the
result of a personal injury w'aich he sustained in the course of. his employ, _ent.
It is the Organization's posit.*_on that tile Carrier dismissed the Cla~,nt,
not on the evidence presented at the trial, but due to the fact that he had
suffe~-ed a service connected injury.
The Carrier takes the position that the facts and evidence, produced
at a fair and in ~rrtial trial, demonstrate the guilt of the offense z-rith
which the Claimant :;as charged and that the discipline assessed was
warranted i n view of the Claimant's exce'-s4ve and unauthorized absence.
The evidence of record is quite clear. Claimant was injured on the job
and received Con naz~v medical -'-reatiaen~. It -rtias the view of the Carrier's
Medical Department that the Claimant i-r-as fit: to return to service oil April
7, 1978 and the CIayn_ant ,;ns so advised. 1-?orvrever, the Claiirant did not
return to duty until A ,~Jril
30, 1978. .-;?though,
it -is argued that the
Claimant's absence during the period of April
7, 1978
to April
30,
1978
eras medically related, there is no evidence of record to support that
allegation.
On the bas! s of these facts there is no cane stion but that the Claisrant
-was properly charged with unauthorized absence and alas guilty of the charge.
The Clairc:ant's prior absentee record eras introduced at the trial for
purposes of derlonstra tin- justification for the penalty imposed. The _prior
absentee record ol.' the Cla.it~ ant indicates that a:aorig his three letters of
caution, one
;~a-s
"or exces~;ive absenteeism; that ar_:ong his seven di scip1i-ar,ysuspensions (totalling
165
da-ys out of service) tiro were for excessive
absenteeism where tire Clw:tiant z~ras susnen,37.ed for -ten days and fifteen days
respectively -w-here 11e eras absent from work for 24 full and 15 part days and
28 fu'L_ and 15 cart
days
for the respective suspension; and that during the
course of 21 months emplo-gent the Claiz:_.:.nt z-ras absent from work due to
days servln- susc,nsion or i),11 or part
days
of absence in excess of
65;!,
of the total working time available.
In view of the circumstances outlined above this Board finds that the
Carrier's judgent
a
.n tex:rlnatin- the Clair:ant was not arbitrary and that
the measure of discipline ,,rs.s appropriate.
A % A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
8191
Docket No. 8117
2-CR-D 1,'-.'
79
11ATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTT,=-IT BOARD
By Order of Second
Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National
Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Bre.3ch .- Administrative i-issis-cunt
Dated at `Chicago,
Illinois,
this 28th day of Tdovember,
1979.