Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8273
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8143
2-AT8oSF-FO-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Richard R. Kasher when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
97,,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute : Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Carrier erred and violated the contractual rights of
I'D% M. E.
Norwood when they removed him from service as a result of an investigation
held on October 28,
1977.
(2) That, therefore, 1'Ir. Norwood be returned to service with allL rights,
privileges and benefits restored.
(3) That, he be made whole for all health and welfare benefits, pension
benefits, unemployment and sickness benefits and any other benefits :he
would have earned had he not been removed from service.
(4) Further, that he be compensated for all lost time, including overtime
and holiday pay plus 6°c!~annual interest on all lost wages and that such
lost time b e counted as vacation qualifying time.
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.
Claimant, a tractor operator and laborer, was permanently removed from service
on November 17,
1977.
He was dismissed folloAng an investigation held October 28,
1977,
at which facts were developed concerning his alleged failure to report for
duty on time on October
17, 1977
and October 20,
1977
and falsification of time
cards on both dates.
Rules 2, 14, 15 and 16 of the controlling agreement provide in pertinent
part as follows:
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 8273
Docket No. 8143
2-AT&SF-FO-'80
Employes must be conversant with and obey the
C ompany' s rules."
"14.
Employee must ... not withhold information, or
fail to give all the facts, regarding irregularities ... or rule violations."
"15. Employes must report for duty as required ..."
"16.
Employes must not be indifferent to duty,
insubordinate, dishonest, immoral or quarrelsome or vicious."
On Monday, October
17, 1977,
Claimant was to be punched in and ready for
work at
3:30
p.m. He had just been reassigned to work in the freight car shop;
was given a new position number; and was to begin working a different shift.
Claimant had recently returned from a six-month suspension for intoxication.
The procedure for recording employes' time in the freight car shop is a simple
one. Employes on the
3:30
p.m.to 75.:50 P.m. shift are to be changed into thei?°
work clothes and ready for duty by
3:30.
Employes report to the time clock
where they are handed a clock card and a detail card. Employes record their
starting time by punching in the clock card. At the end of their shift, employes
mark in pencil the time they go off duty on the detail card and calculate their
time in hours and minutes.
On October
17, 1977,
Claimant did not show up at the time clock by
3:30
p,.m.,
at which time his foreman left that area and went down to the one-spot. Claimant
appeared at the one-spot at about ten minutes to four, and his foreman asked h:im
two questions: Who gave him his clock card? Was he late for work? Claimant
replied that someone in the Rip Track Office had given him a clock card, and that
he was not late for work. The foreman then asked Claimant to show him hzs clock card
and the card shaved Claimant -punched in at
3:43
p.m. At the close of the shift,
when the foreman collected the clock and detail cards, Claimant's clock card
showed him punched in at 2:50 p.m. The clock card submitted by Claimant on October
17, 1977
was smeared and dated Friday, October
14, 1977.
Claimant signed out at
11:50 p.m. and claimed eight hours of work on both his clock and detail cards.
Employes are not permitted to keep extra clock cards and Claimant was unable to
explain how he came into the possession of a clock card with an early punch in time
on it.
On October 20,
1977,
Claimant punched in at
3:36
p.m., six minutes late. Yet,
on both his clock and detail cards for October 20,
1977,
he claimed a full eight
hours.
The thrust of the argument raised by the organization on Claimant's behalf
was that a great deal of confusion was created by the fact that Claimant had just
changed shifts and position numbers, and that it was a Carrier officer who had
given Claimant the mysterious clock card with the 2:50 Punch in time. Assuming
arguendo that Claimant was confused by his new assignment, his confusion was neither
an excuse to submit a false time card nor to report a full day's work when
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 8273
Docket No. 8143
2-AT8oSF-FO-'80
a full day's work had not been performed. Further, any possible confusion on
Claimant's part on Monday, October 17, 1977, does not explain Claimant's misconduct on October 20, 1977. By October 20, 1977, Claimant had worked his new
position for three days and was fully aware of his assignment,
The discipline assessed by the Carrier was not unreasonable, unjust or
arbitrary. Claimant's conduct on October 17 and 20, 1977 was clearly in violation
of the controlling agreement and inexcuseableo
The Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
_'"-,~-.--' . ..~'.,..~' tr
'osrrle Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at~Chicago, Illinois., this 19th day of March, 1980.