Form 1 NATIONAL RAILR04D ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award. No,
8431
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8267
2-D&RGW-FO-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered,
( System Federation No. 10, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L, - C. I. 0,
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
( Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of EmTloyes:
1. Under the current controlling Agreement, Mr. Kent A. Jackson, laborer,
Denver, Colorado, was unjustly dealt with when dismissed from service
of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, effective
November 15, 1977,
2. That, accordingly, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company,
be ordered to reinstate Mr. Kent A. Jackson to service with full
seniority, payment for time lost including fringe benefits, and removal.
of record of same from his personal file.
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 U`une 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.
Claimant, a laborer, was employed by the carrier at its Denver shops. After
an investigation held on November
15, 1977,
the claimant was discharged for
excessive absence from his assignment during the period from
July 15, 1977 to
October 30,
1971.
The organization contends the investigation was not held in a timely fashion
since the investigation addressed alleged absenteeism that occurred five months
prior to the hearing. Next, the claimant argues his absences were excused due
to an injury. The carrier asserts that the record contains substantial evidence
to justify the dismissal when coupled with a prior work record replete with
excessive absences,
Rule 11 of the applicable agreement mandates that the disciplinary
investigation "... shall. be held as promptly as possible but within ten (10)
days of the date when charged with the offense or held frown service," The
instant charge against claimant concerned excessive failure to attend to his
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8431
Docket No.
8267
2-D&RGW-FO-'80
assigments. The ntunber of absences becarnes meaningful. only when viewed over a
period of time. Thus, the carrier cannot properly charge an employe with
consistent failure to maintain his assignment without accumulating a record of
absences within a period of time. Here, the carrier had accused
claimant
of
continued absences during a three and one half month period. The hearing was
promptly held at the conclusion of the period. So, the carrier fully complied
with Rule
11.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude the claimant failed to
present any evidence on the property to justify his excessive absences. There is
no substantiation that the claimant was injured. During the period at issue, he
ignored his duty to report to his assignment at least 20 times. At the hearing,
he only offered excuses for four absences and he freely admitted to his constant
truancy. Dismissal is the appropriate penalty because the claimant had recently
received 60 demerits for excessive absences during the period immediately before
July 15, 1977. The transcript discloses that the claimant was acutely aware that
continued failure to protect his assignment would result in dismissal:
"Q. Were you also advised by the Master Mechanic in the
presence of ;,tour union representative that you were
allowed to accept discipline at that time and if your
record did not improve in the future you would receive
discipline and probable dismissal?
A. (Claimant) Yes.
Q. Is it a fact, Mr. Jackson that on J'u.7,y 15, You
received
60
demerits due to your failure to protect your
assignments and at that time you had an absentee record of
21.6%, does this reflect practically no improvement on your
attendance record?
A. (Claimant) Well it's obvious that there is no improvement."
The carrier rightfully expects its employes to regularly report to work to
maintain efficient operations. Here, the claimant violated the agreement and
was properly dismissed.
A W A R D
Claim is denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY
se rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at C icago, Illinois, this
6th day
of
August, 1980.