Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8411
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8321.
2-SOU-MA-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Higdon C. Roberts, Jr, when award was rendered.
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Southern Railway Company was arbitrary and capricious when
they unjustly dismissed from service Machinist J. K. Crew, Atlanta,
Georgia, on fuhy 43
1978.
2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Company be ordered to reinstate
Machinist J. K. Crew, with pay for all lost time wages, with all rights
under the Agreement unimpaired.
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 were , given due notice .of - hearing. thereon.
The claimant (J. K. Crew) was dismissed from service for excessive absence
and tardiness during the period of 20 work days prior to June
16, 1978.
The
investigation and supporting carrier documents established that Mx. Crew was
absent or tardy nearly 40%o of the time. This record was not challenged by Mr.
Crew. He challenged only the carrier's statement that for three of his absences,
he
had
not reported off. He claimed his wife had reported him off, but we
accept the carrier's evidence to the contrary.
The organization claims that M.r. Crew had legitimate reasons for his
absences and tardiness, namely: personal sickness, a sick father, and a niece
with personal and legal problems. The sick father doesn't wash because the
father was in another city and claimant admits he did not go to visit him. The
claimant's personal sickness was unsubstantiated. The problems with the niece
no doubt were real, but did not necessarily excuse Mr. Crew from protecting his
assignment. He was, therefore, guilty of the charge.
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.
8419
Docket No.
8321
2-SOU-MA-'80
Numerous awards of this Board have sustained the introduction of an employee's
past performnce record in assessment of proper discipline, In this case, the:
claimant had been warned about his excessive absences and tardiness many times,
Be had sustained four previous suspensions for similar charges. This constitutes
progressive discipline and sufficient warning to the claimant that severe penalty
would be a possibility if he continued with his absence and tardiness. We do
not find the penalty in this case unreasonable.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B_ _
~senarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated~&,t Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of
July, 1980.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division