Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS TMENT BOARD Award No.
8238
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8104
2-N&W-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 16, Railway Employes'
( Depa?-tment, A. F . of Z. - C. I. 0. '
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the controlling Agreement Upgraded Carman-Jeffery A. Davis*,t7as
unjustly dismissed from service on October
17, 1977,
as a result of
investigation held on September 20,
1977,
at Chicago, ILlim is.
2. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company be ordered to immediately
reinstate Upgraded Carman Jeffery A. Davis to service, make him. whole
for all wages lost, seniority and vacation rights, and all other
benefits that deservedly belong to him under the existing contracts
between the parties to dispute for the period of time he is unjustly
dismissed.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
An investigation was held on September 20,
1977
pursuant to Agreement Rule
32
to determine Claimant's responsibility for excessive absenteeism.
Claimant was subsequently found guilty of this specification and dismissed
from service, effective October
17, 1977.
This disposition was appealed on the property and is presently before us for
appellate consideration.
In defense of his position, claimant argues that Carrier violated Rules 20,
32
and
33
and specifically asserts that he was legitimately i11 on the days in
question. Tie avers that his physician's note of September 8,
1977
affirms his
medical condition.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8238
Docket No.
8104
2-N&W-Cry-
1
8o
Carrier, contravise, contends that as a relatively new e.~nployee with approximately
ten (10) and one half
(1)
months of service, claimant repeatedly manifested poor
work habits and was totally unresponsive to supervisory admonitions regarding his
habitual latenesses and absences. It noted that he had previously received an
investigative hearing for similar deportment,
In reviewing this case, this Board finds more than sufficient evidence to
conclude that claimant unreasonably avoided taking the necessary precautions to
protect his job. He was late or absent eighteen
(18)
times between June
30, 15177
and September
9, 1977
and failed to provide any credible medical verification
until September
8, 1977,
two days after his absences on September 2,
3, 5
and
E~, ,
1977.
When his aggregative attendance record is objectively assessed within the
context of his short term employment and the :prior investigation held in April,
1977, this Board has no viable alternative under these circiLmstances and our
decisional law, other than to sustain his termination. It is regrettable that he
should have placed himself in such a precarious and untenable position, but he
was amply warned and counselled to remediate his attendance problem.
The employment relationship demands, of necessity, and particularly in this
critical industry that employees must diligently perform the work for which they
are hired. If an employee chooses to determine unilaterally, his employment
schedule, he does so at his peril.
We do not find that Carrier violated any of the Rules cited in the instant clam,
but correlatively find that he was afforded a fair and impartial investigation.
In Second Division Award
7348,
we held in pertinent part that ";?hen an employee:
is so consistently and habitually absent over a long period of time that his
employment becomes a serious liability rather than an asset, Carrier is entitled
to terminate his services". We think that this holding is directly on point with
the facts in this dispute and thus we will deny the claim.
A W A R D
C laim denied.
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSli%1ENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
16th day of January 1980.