Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
895
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8730
2-SCZ-FO-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John J. Mikrut, Jr. when award was rendered.
( Imar#ttioasel Brefher'hoW of Fireman & fliers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, laborer Z. E. Godfrey
was unjustly dismissed from the service of the Seaboard Coast Line
Railroad Company on February
8, 1979,
after a formal investigation was
held in the office of Mr. J. J. McNabb, Conducting Officer, on
February 1,
1979·
2. That accordingly Z. E. Godfrey, Laborer, be restored to his regular
assignment at Tilford Yards with all seniority rights unimpaired,
vacation, health and welfare, hospital and life insurance, and
dental insurance be paid. and compensated for all lost time, effective
February
9, 1979.
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 respectfully carrier end employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
as approved June 21,
193+.
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 laborer at Carrier's locomotive repair facility (Tilford Yards)
in Atlanta, Georgia, was charged with violation of Rule
19
of the applicable
Agreement,
"...
being absent without permission and for excessive absenteeism".
Subsequent to a formal investigation which was held on February 1,
1979,
Claimant
was found to be guilty as charged and was dismissed from Carrier's service
effective February
g, 1979.
The record shows that Claimant was hired in October of
1976
and that in the
calendar year immediately preceeding his discharge, Claimant, for various reasons,
was absent from work a total of
54
days (approximately 20% of the
255
days which
Claimant could have worked in
1978),
and, in addition, he was late for work on
numerous occasions during that same period of time. The record also shows that
throughout his term of employment Claimant received
6
letters of reprimand,
5
of which were for various attendance infractions.
Form 1 Award No.
8$95
Page
2
Docket No.
8730
2-scL-FO-'82
The immediate incident which precipitated Claimant's termination occurred
on Wednesday, January
17, 1979,
at which time Claimant was assigned to work on
the
7
AM to
3
PM shift. At approximately
9
AM on said morning, Carrier received
a telephone call from an unidentified woman who said that Claimant would not be
at work that day because he was having a tooth pulled, but that he would be back
to work on the following day. Claimant, however, did not return to work
until January
30, 1979,
same 13 days later. In response to a direct question which
was posed to him at the investigatory hearing, Claimant acknowledged that he could
have contacted Carrier throughout the time of this extended absence, but that he
did not do so.
The essence of Organization's position in this dispute is that Carrier's
termination of Claimant was unjust because Carrier included several. days in
Claimant's enumerated absences on which Claimant was ill and had received permission
to be off work, and thus was in compliance with Rule
19;
and that the Claimant,
either himself, a relative or a friend, notified Carrier of each of his absences
which, according to Organization, is all that is required by Rule 19. For these
reasons, Organization maintains that Carrier's termination of Claimant is excessive
and should be overturned.
Carrier's position, simply stated, is that sufficient evidence was adduced
in this matter which clearly establishes that Claimant's overall attendance was
deficient; that he was disciplined previously for similar infractions, that he
was absent without permission from January
18, 1979
through January
29;
and that
claimant's "friend's" notification to Carrier that Claimant would not be at work
on January
17
came
2
hours after shift start. Carrier further contends that
Claimant's admission
"...
that he could have phoned regarding his absence
...
(but)
...
he did not do so", demonstrates that he
"... simply
failed to protect
his assignment with complete disregard for the requirements of this Carrier".
In summary of its position, Carrier asserts that insofar as Claimant's guilt
has been established and no contention has been made that the investigation
was improper, then the discipline which was imposed cannot be considered as
being unjust, unfair, arbitrary, or capricious, and the instant claim, therefore,
should be denied (Second Division Awards
387+, 44Ol
and
x+08).
The Board, upon a complete and careful analysis of the record in this
dispute, is convinced that Carrier's
d3satone1
of Claimant was neither improper
nor unjust. Though most, if not all of Claimant's previous absences may very
well have been as a result of illness or for other legitimate reasons, and
though Claimant, his friends or relatives may very well have contacted Carrier
and reported his pending absences, the fact remains that said absences, nonetheless, were excessive, end Carrier, within reasonable limits, is not obligated to
tolerate such action on the part of its employees. Claimant's previous record
and warnings, his very own admissions, and the gravity of his final infraction,
taken as a whole, are sufficient evidence of Claimant's guilt and a justification
for the penalty which has been imposed by Carrier. Given these determinations,
the Board may not and will not substitute its judgement for that of Carrier, and
Claimant's discharge, therefore, will remain undisturbed.'
norm 1
Page
3
A W A R T)
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
8885
Docket No.
8730
2-SCL-FO-182
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADYUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY ~ -.
emarie B=asch - Administr five Assistant
Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this
3rd
day
of February, 1982