Form 1 NATION?4L RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8570
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8596
2-C&NW-CM-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:

~ Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. Freight Car Inspector Michael Vaughn was erroneously charged with being absent from duty without proper authority on July 22, 28 and August 13, 1978.

2. Freight Car Inspector Michael Vaughn was unjustly assessed fifteen (1;5) days actual suspension.

3. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered to compensate Freight Car Inspector 1:ichael Vaughn for all time lost at eight (8) hours per day for fifteen (15) days plus all benefits to w!ich he is entitled, vhich are a condition of employment, in accordance with Rule 35.

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 freight car inspector, was charged with bring absent without proper authority on July 22, 28 and August 13, 1978 in violation of General Rile lii- and iiul` ._'0 Oi t'S.'. a';i~)licable <_,-.~roeT:zat. -1_ter an 1 nvosti-at.'.GIl held on August 25, 1)78, the. carrier suspended the claimant zor fifteen working days.

The organization initially objects to the fom of the notice to claimant regarding the charges. On the merits, according to the employes, the carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof. Also, the claimant attempted to call in but the carrier's policy of requiring absent employes to obtain prior permiss4~.en frc^1 the general foreman prevents em.ployes from reasonabi,,- procuring such permission. In reply, the carrier, contends that the record discloses not only that clai:aant was absent on the days in question but also that he failed to properly secure permission from the general foreman.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8570
Docket No. 8596
2 -C&NW-CM-' 81

The original notice to claimant dated August 15, 1978 charged claimant with

absences for August 22, 28 and August 13, 1978 and set the hearing for August 2',
1978. Subsequently, at the express request of the organization, the hearing was
postponed to August 25, 1978. In the revised notice sent to the claimant, the
st:?t~::.~·;t~ ;.,f c'. roes indicated claimant was absc-,it on July 22, 28, and August 13,
11978. The orr..w_~,:~ z` ` `.~ `; .,t the charge in the alleged absence dates
deprived the claimant fair notice. We disagree. The claimant was adequately
apprised of the charges brought against him in the original nc,tice and, at the
investigation, he acknowledged that notice was sufficient. The revised notice
was idential to the first notice except for the reference to August 22 and 28
instead of July 22 and 28 and that minor discrepancy was obviously due to clerical
inadvertence.

Claimant did not report to work on the three dates in question. On August 13, he failed to even call the carrier. Cn the other two days, he did call but he did not speak directly with the general foreman. While the record is not entirely clear, it appears that on one day he spoke to an acting foreman and on the other day he left a message with a fellow worker. The clair.-ant asserts that the calls constitute sufficient notification under Rule 20, The carrier concedes that clai:Mant called but says the officer designated by the carrier to grant permission to be absent never gave claimant permission. Rule 20 requires the claimant to procure proper authority for his absence to be deemed excused. Second Division Award ~:o. (Kasher). The carrier ray, within reasonable limits, vest a particular officer with the authority to excuse absences. Second Division Award No. 7754 (Scearce). This policy, when not abused, pro.^.:ctes uniformity in the standards for grant in.or denying permission to be absent. In this case, the claimant knew that 'tie had to receive permission from the general foreman for all absences. We cannot say that the designation of the general foreman is in violation of Rule 20. Therefore, the carrier has proffered substantial evidence that the clain<.nt failed to proc:-:re proper authority for his absences on July 22 and 2'3 and that lie did not even call the carrier on August 13.

Lastly, given claimant's prior work record, we see no reason to adjust the ass`ss?d discipline. In the recent past, the claimant has had a problem with absenteeism. A fifteen day suspension is commensurate with claimant's offense.

Claim denied.

Attest: E:cecutive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

A W A R D

NTATIOi _AL P:",ILRCAD ADJ I;ST=EN'T B'Cr~.RD
By Order o= Second Division

By _, ,r *, r

-, - , y,.s-, :f-.®' -,f.; : a, .,._eo, .'~

J~csemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated; at Chicago,

Illinois, this 7th day of January, l~ S1.