Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8421
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8328
' 2-SISF-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Higdon C. Roberts.. Jr. when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 22, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (C armen)
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company unjustly dismissed
Carman Apprentice E. R. Hart, Tulsa, Oklahoma, from service on
December 16, 1978, following investigation held on December
6, 1978,
in
violation of the controlling agreement.
2. That Carman Apprentice E. R. Hart be returned to service with seniority
rights, vacation rights and all other benefits that are a condition of
employment, unimpaired, and that he be compensated for all time lost
plus six percent
(6%)
annual interest and reimbursed for all losses
sustained account of loss of coverage under health and welfare and life
insurance during the time held out of 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 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.
The carrier has a right to expect employees to be present, on time, at their
assigned duties. Excessive absenteeism and tardiness can be legitimate grounds
for discipline, up to and including discharge. The carrier has demonstrated
through reliable (payroll) records that the claimant, Mr. Hart, was absent 51
days in a little over 10 month work period. This represents 22-21% of his normal
work days for the period. In one month (August), he was absent
35%
of his normal
work time. Notwithstanding the fact that he had properly marked off, this is, in
my judgment, excessive absence.
Carrier had warned the claimant on several occasions to excessive absence and
tardiness, and poor (negligent) work performance. Consideration of the total work
record is appropriate and relevant in assessing penalties. In this case, the
past record, combined with the record of the immediate period in the charge is
such to sustain the discharge.
Form 1
Page 2
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
o marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of
July, 1980.
Award No.
8421
Docket No. 8328
2-SLSF-CM-180
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division