Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
85V
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8289
2-D&RGW-FO-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David H. Brown when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( RECEIVED
~ Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Compan9EC
',& 9 1980
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
P. E. LaC OSSE
1. Under the current controlling Agreement, Mr. Ronnie L. Stubblefield,
laborer, Denver, Colorado, was unjustly dealt with when dismissed
from service of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
effective January
13, 1978.
2. That, accordingly, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
be ordered to reinstate Mr. Ronnie L. Stubblefield to service with full
seniority, payment for all 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 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.
On December 20,
1977,
Carrier gave written notice to Claimant that a formal
investigation would be held on January
6, 1978,
"...
to determine facts and place responsibility, if any, in
connection with the alleged excessive absenteeism of Mr.
Ronnie L. Stubblefield, Laborer, during the period
August 1,
1977,
to December 30,
19770"
At the request of the Local Chairman, the investigation was postponed to
January 10,
1978,
at which time it was held. The investigation revealed that in
the indicated period Claimant had
36
unexcused absences and missed some work on.
an additional eight days.
The Organization urges that we should set aside the discipline assessed
because it is alleged that Carrier did not comply with Rule 11 (a), the governing
'rule. Such rule requires that an investigation shall be held as promptly as
F orm 1
Page 2
Award No. 851+6
Docket No. 8289
2-D&RGW-FO-'80
possible but within ten days of the date charged with the offense or held from
service. Petitioner points out that Claimant was held accountable for days as
much as 5 months prior to the investigation.
Excessive absenteeism necessarily occurs over a somewhat extended period of
time. If the Organization's position were sustained, however, excessive absenteeism
could never be the subject of an investigation, something obviously not intended
by the parties. From the very nature of the offense each day of the unauthorized
absence is a new straw on the camel's back until the breaking point is reached.
With Carrier, December 29 was the final straw, whereupon the investigation was
promptly scheduled and promptly held, beyond 10 days only at the instance of
Claimant's representative.
Other contentions and arguments raised by the parties, while asserting
deficiencies in each sides' handling of this matter, will not be commented upon,
because of the disposition made in this case.
On reviewing the whole record, however, and evaluating- Claimant's total
record of service, we find that the ends of justice will be served if Claimant
is restored to duty without back pay and given one last chance to demonstrate
that he can be a valuable employee of Carrier. Claimant should be well aware
that Carrier cannot countenance a resumption of his neglect of duty during the
period covered by the investigation.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in conformity with foregoing opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ._.~`~L
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of December,
1980.