Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. $370
SECOM DIVISION Docket No. 8008
2-SPr-MA-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Wesley A. Wildman when award was rendered,
( International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, Machinist Helper H. Jackson, Jr.,,
(hereinafter referred to as Claimant) was improperly dismissed from
the service of the Carrier on January 6, 1978.
2, That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Claimant to
service with seniority and service rights unimpaired and with
compensation for all wage loss from date of dismissal to date of
restoration to service.
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 car employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Railway
Tabor Act as approved tune 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.
Claimant in this case, Machinist Helper H. Jackson, Jr.., was given notice
of discharge on January 6, 1978, following a hearing at which he appeared undercharge of "... your alleged continued failure to report for duty at the prescribed
time and place and your continued failure to protect your assignment from
September 1, 1977 to November 30, 1977, for which you are hereby charged with
the responsibility which may involve violation of Rule 810 of the General. Rules
and Regulations ...".
Rule 810 reads in relevant part as follows:
"Employees must report for duty at the prescribed time and
place...
Continued failure by employees to protect their employment
shall be sufficient cause for dismissal."
Form 1 Award No. ~8370
Page 2 Docket No. 8008
2-SPT-MA-180
Claimant appeals in part on the ground that the charge as quoted above was
not sufficiently precise. We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing and
conclude that Claimant and his representative did, indeed, understand the
thrust and nature of the charge against Claimant, and find it doubtful that any
greater degree of specificity in the charge would have resulted in a more
thorough or credible defense by Claimant. Claimant advised at the outset of
the hearirig~that he was ready to proceed and that he was, in fact, familiar
with Rule 810,
Any employee has, generally, three separate obligations with regard to
attendance on the job:
1). Unless, under the unique circumstances prevailing in a given instance.,
it is a physical
impossibility,
an employee must give advance notice of an
impending absence so that employer and replacements may adjust to the absence
as rapidly as possible.
2).
The;renis
or excuses for any and all absences, irrespective of
frequency, must be good and credible ones, and must constitute circumstances
which make absence unavoidable.
3).
Save for continuous (possibly long) periods of absence, usually due to
serious illness, an employee has an obligation to appear on the job, over a
period
of time, with consistent regularity. Constantly recurring, relatively
short periods of absence which establish a pattern of chronic absenteeism over
a period of time need not be.tolerated by an employer even though notice has
been given for each of the absences and even though the reasons tendered appear
to be credible.
With regard to the first of an employee's attendance obligations as discussed
above., Claimant in this case does not appear to have done badly; however, it
appears fry the record that on ,points two and/or three, Claimant has not met
his responsibilities.
Despite opportunities at the hearing to present reasons for his absences
and tardiness during the period in question, Claimant had little or nothing of
a credible or convincing nature to offer. Moreover, the total of absenteeism
and tardiness over the three
(3)
month period which is in issue in this case
was, without adequate justification being advanced by the Claimant, inexcusably
high.
We find, on consideration of the entire record that substantial evidence
does exist for the Carrier's judgment that a reasonable standard of attendance,
which Carrier has a right to expect under Rule 810, was not met by Claimant in
this case_
As to the quantum of discipline, Carrier appropriately and in timely fashion
(on the property), considered Claimant's past record as to absenteeism. The
evidence indicates that, despite considerable counseling and prior warnings by
supervision with respect to Claimant's attendance problem, his record has been
a very poor one, Indeed, Claimant has previously been discharged for inadequate
Form 1
Page,
Award No.
8370
Docket No. 8008
2-SPr-MA-'80
attendance and later reinstated. We cannot find now that Carrier's imposition
of the discharge penalty is arbitrary, capricious, or excessive.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
o emarie Branch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of June,
1980,