Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
85C2
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8385
2-rHKT-CM-'
80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United
( States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
I. That under the controlling agreement Carman Welder John W. Bowers
was unjustly removed from the service
of
the Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Railroad Cmpany, Denison, Texas, on December
13, 19'78,
following
investigation held on December 12,
1978.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri-Kansas-Tezas Railroad Company be ordered
to restore Carman Welder Bowers to service with pay for all time lost
and any other benefits he would have been entitled to beginning
December
13, 1978.
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.
An investigative hearing was held on December 12,
1978
to determine whether
Claimant's attendance record, which included 14 Iatenesses, 11 absences and
n
occasions tanen left work early, violated Circular No. Dp-2, particularly,
General Rule A, which in part, states that:
"Employees must report at the appointed time, devote
themselves exclusively to their duties, must not absent
themselves without proper authority."
He was subsequently found guilty of violating this Rule and dismissed from service
on December
13, 1978.
'this disposition was appealed.
In defense
of
his position, Claimant contends that lie gave Carrier a
reasonable explanation for each asserted lateness and absence which he concedes
was an oversight, but, admittedly, without proper authorization. Ile argues that
he complied with the letter of Agreement Rule
17
which requires timely notification
Form 1 Award No.
8502
Page 2 Docket No.
8385
2-MKT-CM-'80
when an employee is detained from work because of sickness or "other good
cause" and requested compensated reinstatement.
Carrier contrawise, contends that he did not have authority or permission
to be late, absent or leave early on the charged dates and that he could have
used the emergency line, that was specifically available between the hours of
5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. to notify the shop in an orderly manner that he would
be late. It argues that his poor aggregative attendance record was patently
without mitigative justification and thus by definition, inimical to efficient rail
operations.
In our review of this case, we agree with Carrier that Claimant was
indifferent to his work obligations. Close reading of the investigative transcript
clearly shows that while he sought to comply with Agreement Rule
1'7's
notification
requirement, his pattern and practice of co:i:pliance was palpably inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of Rule 17 and Circular No. DP-2's General Rule A.
He was mindful that an emergency line was available to permit employees
the opportunity to notify Carrier. in timely fashion of any intended lateness
or absence, but he disregarded using this purposeful facility. His pattern
of indifference to the evergency line does not appear to be coincidental.
Similarly, his cavalier response to his admitted November
6, 1978
unauthorized
absence confirms his lackadasical attitude. In Second Division Award 62110,
we stated in pertinent part that:
"This Board has repeatedly pointed up the detrimental effect of
absenteeism upon the operations
of
the railroads. The
confusion and disruption created when an employee absents
himself from work without due notice to supervision, is
harmful not only to the employer but to other employees
as well."
We find this holding conceptually relevant to this dispute. Claimant's
attendance record was plainly unacceptable.
On the other hand, we recognize that Claimant had becn employed by Carrier
for about
8
years and we believe that it would be judicially consistent with the
principles
of
progressive discipline, if we reinstated him on a leniency basis
to his position, without back pay. We hasten to add, however, that while we
are modifying Carrier's justifiable penalty, with great reluctance, because of
the seriousness of his actions, we expect that Claimant will fully comport with.
Carrier's attendance requirements.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent expressed herein.
Form 1 Award No.
8502
Page
3
Docket No.
8385
2-MKT-CM-'80
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
i'os(marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
,, Dated at Chicago, -Illinois, this 19th day of November, 1980.