Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
M33
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
88+0
2-BN-FO-'82
The Second Divisl.on consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elliott M. Abramson when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Laborer Gail Graham, Lincoln,
Nebraska, was unfairly dismissed from service of the Burlington Northern
Inc. effective May
29, 1979.
2.
That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make Gail Graham whole
by restoring her to service with seniority rights, vacation rights, and
all other benefits that are a condition of employment, unimpaired, with
compensation for all lost time plus
6%
annual interest; with reimburse
ment-of all losses sustained account loss of coverage under Health and
Welfare and Life Insurance Agreements during the time held out of
service; and the mark removed from her record.
Findings
The Second Division oil 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, 193+.
This Division of the Adjustment hoard leas jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived ri_ght of appearance at hearing therecm.
On May
29, 1979
the Claimant, a laborer who se seniority date is July 13,
1978,
was dismissed from service in connection with her absenting herself from
duty, allegedly without authority, on April
20, 1979,
in violation of Rule
665.
At the May 8,
1979
Investigation the Claimant admitted that she
did not
notify the Wheel Plant Office that she would be unable to protect her assignment.
After stating that she though her husband had called in :ror her but that he had
not because he assumed she had called, she said: "I realize also that this does
not excuse the fact that I did not call but that is the reason." She explicitly
admitted a violation of Rule
665.
A doctor's note, on behalf of Claimant's
three month old shoulder injury, dated April
30, 1979,
does not unequivocally
establish that the Claimant was unable to work on April 20,
1979,
and therefore,
it can not be found that she was "unavoidably detained" from service on the date
in question.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8883
Docket No.
88?+0
2-BN-FO-182
The record provides substantial evidence upon which a finding of guilty can
be based. The Claimant clearly did not comply with the notice requirements of
Rule
15
(f) of the Agreement. Additionally, she had been employed by Carrier for
less than a year and prior to the instant infraction had received a censure, on
aanuary
4,
1979, for excessive absenteeism axed tardiness while working as a
laborer. We feel that the evidence establishes that the Claimant is unable or
unwilling to maintain a reasonable attendance record and thus evinces a high
degree of irresponsibility on a matter of fundamental importance to the smooth
operation of the Gamier.
Having disposed of this matter on the merits we find that there is no need
to address the Carrier's contention that the claim is procedurally defective.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board.
By
s narie Branch - Admin~ ive Assistant
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMf;NT BOARD
1;y Order of Second Div~_sion
Dated
4
Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day cf January, 1982.