For: 1 hATIOUIL RkII,R:,DAD, A T~,1Lr.""".i:r;T DD~'1:~ Award °?a.






Parties ±.o- Dsnut=e · ( (Carman)
 (
 ( Chicago and North Wns; tern I'r~ixlsportatien Company

 Dis-out e.~._ C1. of_~.'`'..lo;~es











jFI .. n..djng v
The rr s ' o t.:n., Board, t. F, whorecord ,~ccond Division of ~~a .. A.~ j :~.., v-s. ~ upon ~,hl~e n.i
 all the evidence, fines that:

Railway Labor Act a:> approved june 2i, 1.
involved herein.
Form 1 A,ra rd P1W. 8157
 Page 2 Docket No. b1;>3
 2-C8=-!14-' i~3

California Avenue t,ot_:::: Yard. in ~,,hicaga, . ~z the dates Gf i<ebruary 7, 8,
 and 9, 1978 tthe ~ila=::_'..'1': phoned the Carrier's office to advise that h2
 yeas sick are ? could not work. On February 1.0, 1973 the Claimant's "';Jfe
 notified the Carrier that the Claimant would be late and she was advised,
 in return, U~a t y f the ·~lairran t _as going t0 b~.,, :;`x.11 one ° 710,r late 02'~th`x_la one hour late he
 should not bother to raport for work. On Febroary 14, 107i Claimant
 appeared ne hour and . i ftn,en iT»lo-_· ft.. the g _ of hds assignment.
 No call eras made to the Carrier's office on the date of February 14, 19 ;<8,

 By letter dat;=:d _ _:bruary 22, 108 ;.?e Carrier c.ra.rjed the Wai...?nt a_ ,... responsibility for habitual and excessive nnoor attendance. Me charge stated
 your att-a c· t? ene" -·n~; .^-a ab: .err
        ..n:iln;c..~ a~.cs._.t. x. ~ ;.i-,rr~l ., ppoor ~poor e,~a you rere a. ,~in . _ It on

February 7, 1978; c.."1:.''l absent on jabrua w 8, 1978; again bos°'T7,, G1 .!c: ...._
 9, 1,
        a,_t.n absent '~. 9 _ ; r a .71 1late one - anal f


Cai3~ ,, , ai.z February ~ .G, 1~_r:.;~, a_ ,.:~ a _ hour minutes ore F.'b?'uar' 18_i1 `E -,:^a _vn- · t_- C;n ? r', :e7d '.1 t~ r~ G"- i n .
 minutes on L~ .. .r~.'r .+_,:_~=.r_ held ~ l _. . ~ a. . _ t
 was found `.lll:,y of -sse'sseCJ $ 'I:Ill .'l;.', ' ~!i''3 charges '-33'19 was . .=.. lru.'l.' day suspension ; day :i
 well as an ald~J io:?a1 f M::n c.. 'dayy suspension e t ~ 'ac3 ._een Previous
          ~.t~ .i'. c·suspension ~suspension riic~l °. i. 7_;,·

                    ~. appealed ,.c,deferred. Mdiscipline was and C7:~ S to this Board having . 'c '1

properly pi"G';r"ssed through therequired stnDs of the ' _ evnce procudu: c.
                                      a.


    It is the position of the Organization treat the cir:~;_.=es placed ~~

the Claimant were both false and _. '?raven and that the tC. lainant was :1e
 prized of fai J?a A..d rti~.l investigation. n c, y;,nten:°d by the (i7.-sani
 za-ft i~ .. ~~nization that the Carrier :~. , ~'c:,~r.y cons.aer2d Claimant's 7as t record ir-,
                                      · f.

handling the case on Me prDpery. . .it i;, ,..,__ Organization's posi-ti::n Am:,
 the Carrier is nut ?V : y l ejej to consider the Claimant's =`.a st r t_IC v':. in
 this case since it failed to prove ~l ::.21~ ~Z1 t gU.:..Ity of tn:' char,=.° xiZ',.,:';~
 against h=1".1, Finally, ...t ? s the position of the Organization that th_'
 Carrier relied sole!,-; upon the Claimant's past record in j- ,.s ua,j,_1s tJ_f i: 1.
 determination of ,guil'. .

 It is the Carrier's position ,hat the Claimant's attendance record became excessively poor when he absented hir:oelf on the dates listed in the charge. The Carri=er contends th,n there is no dioput,a in facts

 nCJ the n a. ' bsen^e '"n !^·p ac. os .y th:erefo-,.e
 the only matter y,o t'_ `i 1s w"fit.'.7 .,^ the Carrier as >^ p.t~ ..,a:_:ivCe .,.r
 y mJ matter ~ c:.. _ 'id~d :. . a ^ ~ .,s,:~.:. ~ .. ~...
 unduly harsh discipline.

 In this case the ques- t.ian fe" the Clainant' s prior 2"c?·,'.G.-na:: ';+ ".:cnaanc _.
 lei intimately lrter t'.. nA with the !1' -3J tl :..n of h-s nbsence from : .1G°t _. Q' .1 .M

 four days in question and his eat! ne;~s on the fifth day. Tais is so ,.'._._,of the nature of the narge. !_n 2''-3`T~F?,'I1n;~ the char;;G Z"t-' I-J.nd t· h~a.t the C'.r rJer sought to dKerMns W.lt';nn·;,'s r z3DanAjl l , for habitual c.nd 'y';..., ...:J.. : s
 - r . _ .1 . ,ere - ' i: ' - .,1.. Z and exc ., _ . c -nce ',°i::.'=

 motivated by th:: absences and the latennss on ti:e days in question.
 Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 81;17

Docket No. 8123

2-C&NW-CIA-' 79


Therefore, we find that the question of the Claimant's prior absence record would have been properly considered during the investigation and the handling of this case on the property.

 Thus, when during the course of the investigation the Claimant's representative stated "I am not interested in habitually and excessive. . .", and the investigating officer responded "I am", the issue was properly drawn. However, a thorough reading of the record before us, including the full text of the investigation transcript, does not indicate that the charge of excessive or habitual absence was addressed. The only matters addressed concern the procedures for "calling in" in cases of sickness or lateness, as those procedures related to the five dates in question.

 Therefore, it is not appropriate or necessary for this Board to consider the reasons for the absences on the four days in question or the lateness on the one day in question. Nor is it necessary for us in reaching a decision in this case to consider the Organization's contention that the investigation eras conducted unfairly and in a prejudicial manner.. For, as discussed above, the Carrier failed at the on the property handling level to establish evidence regarding the excessiveness of the Claimant's absences. That was the purpose of the investigation and in that purpose the Carrier failed to prove its case.

 It is true that the Carrier incorper ates the Claimant's prior attendance record in its submission and lists the absences, latenesses and early quits by month and year for our consideration. However, this evidence should have been properly raised during the investigation of the charge of excessive absenteeism. We as an appellate body are constrained from examining it here for the first time.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained, but not to include six percent annual interest for all time lost.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      By e rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November, 1979·