Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEIU BOARD Award No. 836+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7992
2-SCL-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Wesley A, Wildman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C, I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company did improperly dismiss
Coach Cleaner W, C. Wilson, Hialeah., Florida, from the service of the
Carrier on April 21,
1977.
That accordingly, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered
to restore Coach Cleaner W. C. Wilson to service with seniority and
other rights unimpaired and ,paid for a71 time lost, including payment
for health and welfare benefits and other benefits that are a condition
of employment.
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 Jane 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Carrier charges in this case that on March
8,
1977, Coach Cleaner W. C.
Wilson left work in the middle of his shift without permission and without
notifying any
of his supervisors, and that this act constituted a violation of
Rules
4
and 26 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department which
forb id the leaving of work without permission. As a result of this alleged
transgression, Claimant,
a three
(3)
year employee, was dismissed from service
by the Carrier,
On March 17, 1977, an investigative hearing on the incident was conducted.
Claimant stated that while on duty and engaged in car washing, he got soap in
his eyes. He claimed he left his assignment to seek aid frown the foreman but
found the office closed and no one present. He testified further that he told
another employee he was going home to get medical help and that he requested
said employee to inform the foreman accordingly. Finally., Claimant stated at
the hearing that, upon
returning to
work, he explained the situation to his
supervisor and produced a medical receipt for $20.00 verifying treatment of hi..
eyes.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
836+
Docket No. 7992
2-SCL-CM-'80
The supervisor involved stated that he was never informed by another
employee of Claimant's reasons for leaving work and that, upon his return to
work, Claimant never discussed with him (the supervisor) his reasons for leaving,
nor did Claimant ever produce a medical receipt for treatment of his eyes. The
supervisor stated that he did not know, at any time, anything about Claimant
having had soap in his eyes on the shift in question.
The medical receipt mentioned by Claimant in his testimony was not produced
as evidence at the hearing nor did the employee who Claimant was alleged to
have informed of his plight appear to testify.
Claimant now appeals partially on the ground that his hearing was not
fair and impartial because his witness was not present. It is well established
precedent of this Board that initiative for preparing one's own case and
producing one's cum witnesses rests with a Claimant and his representative.
Of course, Carrier assistance may be asked in the production of witnesses, but
there is no evidence on this record that such assistance was ever requested.
Thus, Claimant can not now assert successfully that the failure of his witness
to appear has prejudiced his defense in this case.
It is the judgment of this Board, following a close analysis of the entire
record, that substantial evidence clearly exists for the finding by Carrier
that Claimant was guilty of leaving his shift without notification or justification
in clear violation of the applicable rules.
Finally, as to quantum of discipline, it is the opinion of the Board that
there is no basis for holding that the penalty of dismissal in this case is
arbitrary, capricious, or excessive.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of Tune, 1980,