Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8527
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8561
2-CR-MA-180
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Machinist J. P. Campbell was suspended for sixty
(60)
days.
2. That, accordingly, Machinist J. P. Campbell's record be cleared and he
be compensated for each and every day he was suspended.
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.
Claimant, a machinist in Altoona, Pennsylvania, was suspended for
60
days
for being away from his assigned position between
3:20
and
3:30
P.m. on April
26,
1978.
The claimant was given timely notice of the charge and a fair trial.
The basic facts are undisputed. Between
3:20
p.m. and
3:30
P.m. the clainuint
left his work area to attend a union election. Due to the unusually long lines
at the election, he returned to his work area without voting. Claimant admits
he was gone for five or ten minutes and acknowledges that he did not receive
permission before leaving his assigned work area.
The employe's major defense is that he had to wait for the crane crew to
set up his work and, thus, since he could not continence work, this was the most
expeditious time to participate in the union vote. Furthermore, he did not know
how to seek permission because his foreman did not arrive until
3:30
p.m. The
organization urges us to award the claimant all wages he lost during the suspension
and that he should only be docked for the ten minutes he was away from work.
Assuming the charges are substantial, the organization contends the penalty
is excessive and arbitrary. The carrier argues that there is simply no excuse
for tie claimant's failure to obtain permission before leaving his work area.
According to the carrier, the penalty is appropriate in light of the claimant's
poor prior work record.
Form 1 Award No.
8527
Page 2 Docket No.
8561
2 -CR-MA-'
80
The record clearly manifests, by the claimant's admissions and his foreman's
testimony, that he left his work area for ten minutes on April
26, 1978.
The
record also indicates that the claimant's foreman was willing to accomodate the
claimant by giving him permission to go vote, if only the claimant had requested.
such permission. The carrier rightfully expects the claimant to remain at his
assigned work area, regardless of whether or not his work is ready, unless he
first procures proper authorization to leave his work area. Second Division
Award No.
64=F3
(Shapiro). The burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate he
was unavoidably prevented from requesting permission from his foreman. Second
Division Award No.
6710
(Dolnick). Here, the claimant knew his foreman would
arrive at
3:30
p.m. and he could have easily asked the foreman if he could take
a shoft absence so he could vote.
We now turn to the issue of whether the sixty day suspension was commensurate
with the proven offense. This Board will not upset the carrier's judgment in
assessing the penalty unless the punishment is excessive, arbitrary or an abuse
of discretion. Third Division Award No.
20032
(Eischen). The carrier may
properly weigh the claimant's work history to determine the degree of discipline.
Second Division Award No.
6632
(Yagoda). The carrier's assessment of discipline,
dated September
13, 1978,
indicates the carrier relied heavily on the claimant's,
unfavorable work history.
Upon careful analysis of the claimant's employment record, we conclude
the penalty imposed on the claimant was arbitrary and unduly liafsh when measured.
against a ten minute unauthorized absence. First, we must disregard the charges.
leveled against the claimant on May 11,
1978
(for reading a newspaper and failure
to perform work). Those charges are being considered by this Board in a separate
and distinct case. Though claimant's record is not good, he has been charged
with only two offenses since he was reinstated four and one half years before
this controversy. While the claimant is not a model employe, the penalty must
be reasonably proportionate to the seriousness of the offense he committed.
A relatively minor ten minute absence even with his tainted work record hardly
justifies a sixty day suspension. We rule that given the nature of the offense
and the claimant's prior work record, the maximum penalty, within the realm of
reason, would be a thirty day suspension. Thirty days should sufficiently
impress upon the claimant both his obligation to remain at- his work area and
to
improve his general work habits. Accordingly, the claimant is awarded thirty
days of pay at the rate in effect during the time he served the second thirty
days of his sixty day suspension less any earnings he received from other
employment during that period.
A W A R D
Claim sustained but only to the extent consistent with our findings.
Form 1
Page
3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
8527
Docket No.
8561
2-CR-MA-'
80
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Sy _ _
R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of December,
1980.