Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8305
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8098
2-CR-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Kay Mcmu.rray when award. was rendered,
( System Federation No, 1, Railway Employer'
( Department, A, F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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, 193.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Claimant, Jeffrey P. Williams., was notified by letter dated July 19, 1977, to attend a hearing and investigation on July 26 to answer charges in connection with the following:


Form 1 Award No. 8305
Page 2 Docket No. 8098
2-CR-CM- t 80

Rule 22 reads in pertinent part;

"In case an employe is unavoidably kept frown work he will not be discriminated against. An employe detained from work on account of sickness or for any other good causes shall notify his foreman as early as possible."

The record reveals that on July 12, claimant was four hours late for work with no notice to the supervisor and on July 19 he was three hours and fifty minutes late without contacting the carrier. Mr. Williams admits to the foregoing tardiness but claims that he had to take his girlfriend to the hospital which constitutes a medical emergency and he should not be penalized. It should be noted that he did contact his mother on JWy 19 to assist his girl while he went to work. Apparently he was not so concerned about notification to the carrier.

The record reveals that on March 21, 1977, claimant was sent a letter listing his poor attendance record including numerous late arrivals at work. He was warned that improvement was expected. Further, on May 24, he was notified that in lieu of a scheduled investigation a discussion among his local chairman, the carrier, and the claimant regarding his poor attendance record had resulted in "a continuation of the 'Warning Notice' issued March 21, for a period of twelve months".

In view of the foregoing claimant should have been acutely aware of his responsibility to notify the carrier in accordance with the rule. There are telephones at a hospital and Mr. Williams cannot claim that it was even difficult to notify the carrier.

The entire record shaves a disregard for attendance rules by the claimant which a carrier simply cannot countenance if it is to maintain an efficient work force in the furtherance of its obligation to the public. Some for of disciplinary action was warranted. The five clay suspension is within reasonable bounds for corrective action.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEET BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of April, 1980.