Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi-ENT BOARD Award No. 8503
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8462
2-C&.NW-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.



Parties to Dispute:




Dispute: Claim of Employes:

















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.



Claimant was dismissed from service on July 28, 1978 after an investigative hearing on the following charge:


. 12:43 a. m. and 8:00 a.m. July 8, 1978 while employed as

Form 1 Award No. 8,.5~03
Page 2 Docket No. 8462
2-C&Nw-CM-' 8o

Before examining the hearing record as to the propriety of the disciplinzry action, the Board takes note of what transpired during the processing of the claim on the property.

As attested in a letter from the Organization's Local Chairman to the Carrier's Assistant Vice President, the Carrier offer in a conference on October 5, 1978 to reduce the discipline from dismissal to a 60-day suspension without back pay. (The offer came shortly after the expiration of the Claimant's first 60 days out of service.) This was confirmed in a letter from the Carrier's Assistant Vice President dated October 18 in which it was stated, in part:







The record shows that this offer was declined by the Claimant. It is not clear whether he understood that he could have returned to work and still continued to press his claim for lost pay. In any event, a letter to the Claimant from the Assistant Vice President dated October 27, 1978 then stated:



There is no mention here of "leniency" but simply a reduction of the penalty. The changed penalty came precisely 90 days after the Claimant had been removed from service. He then returned to duty. It thus appears that the Claimant mast bear at least a share of the responsibility -- if not all of it -- for his being out of work from approximately October 5 until October 29.

As to the offenses with which the Claimant was charged, he was scheduled to be on duty from 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., July 8. He was observed from shortly after the start of his shift until 4:30 a.m. by two Carrier representatives who were specifically investigating whether or not the Claimant was performing his duties, along with another Carmen, as assigned for the shift.

Based on the record of the investigative hearing, the Claimant either arrived for work at 11:55 p.m. (his version.) or somewhat later (according to the Carrier observers). There appears confinnation that he could not enter the premises because his senior fellu~a Carmen had not arrived with the key; that the Claimant had no key; and that the Claimant left the property to obtain a key from another employee and returned. The record shows that lie was observed thereafter for most of the time until 4:'~0 a.m. The Board has no basis on which to dispute the findings of the Carrier that tile Claimant failed to perform his assigned duties in an efficient and workmanlike manner during this period. What he did between 4:30 a. m. and the end of the shift was not observed and thus
Form Page

Award No. 8503

Docket No. 8462

2-C&NW-Cm-' 80


cannot be part of a charge against him. Except for the period at the beginning of the shift when the Claim-nt apparently went to obtain a key so he could start his work, there is no evidence that he was not at his assigned location for that portion of the shift.

In judging the severity of the penalty, the Carrier may properly consider the employe's past record. Since this record shows two previous suspensions for failure to perform duties properly, and based on the observations of the supervisors in this instance, a relatively severe penalty is warranted. The part of the charge as to "falsification" of the time slip is, however, overstated. Therefore, some modification of the penalty is in order.

A W A R D

Claim sustained to the extent of reducing the disciplinary penalty from aC) days to 75 days; the Claimant shall be made whole for regular time lost in the final 15 days of his disciplinary suspension.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUMIENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By'*,r~.._ .,. _ _ _ _ . ..
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Datedfat Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of November, 1980.