Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8911
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9033
2-C&NW-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Clarence H. Herrington when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Coach Carpenter Phillip Bradshaw was unjustly disciplined when he was
assessed
15
days actual suspension and was made to serve an addition
30
days suspension which had been previously deferred on August
16,
1979.
2. Coach Carpenter Phillip Bradshaw was erroneously charged with his
absence on July
18
and July
30, 1979,
and tardiness on July
16
and
117,
1979.
3.
That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered to
compensate Coach Carpenter Phillip Bradshaw for all time lost
(45
days),
plus
6%
annual interest, and make him whole in accordance with Rule
35.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a1,1
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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant entered service of the carrier on January 12,
1971.
On August
6, 1979,
Claimant received notice to appear for formal investigation set for
August
15, 1979,
on the following charge:
"Your responsibility for your poor attendance when you were tardy
on Monday, July
16, 19793
again tardy on Tuesday, July
17, 1979;
absent on Wednesday, July
18, 1979,
and again absent on Monday,
July
30, 1979.u
As a result of that hearing, Claimant was given a 15 day actual suspension
from August
16, 1979,
to September 1,
1979.
Claimant, at that time, was required
to serve a 30 calendar day deferred suspension from September 1,
1979,
to
October 1,
1979·
The Board has duly taken into consideration the Organization's letter to this
Board dated March
26, 1981,
setting forth extensive arguments to Carrier's
Form 1 Award No.
8911
Page
2
Docket No.
9033
2-C&NW-CM-'82
including, with its submission, Exhibit B which is a copy of Claimant's past
record. The organization contends this is new material not discussed on the
property.
This and other Boards have well established the principle that in determining
the degree of discipline, after a violation has been established, a Carrier may
take account of an employe's entire record. Not only is it proper to do so,
but necessary on grounds of equity and justice. Therefore, the Board holds that
none of the Claimant's procedural rights were violated.
The Board has carefully reviewed the entire record, including the transcript
of the investigation conducted on August
15, 1979
and finds that the Claimant
was afforded a fair and impartial hearing. The record reflects that on July
16,
1979,
Claimant called in and advised he would be about
15
minutes late. The
records show he was 10 minutes late. On July
17, 1979,
Claimant advised that on
his way to work he had carburetion trouble with his bike. The foreman's time
sheet showed him 10 minutes late. At
7:15
A.M. on July
18, 1979,
Claimant
called his foreman and advised that he might be in but the records show he never
reported. The records reveal that on the evening of July
17, 1979,
Claimant's
9
year old son was admitted to the hospital with chest pains. The doctor's
finding indicated Eschemia of the heart. Claimant's son was released from the
hospital July 24,
1979.
On July
30, 1979,
Claimant called at
7:00
A.M. and
advised he would not be to work due to personal business. The records reflect
that the Claimant's automobile had allegedly been vandalized.
The Board has held that a rigid application of Rule 20 involved in this
case cannot be justified
(see Awards x+227 and
6237).
The proper concern of a
parent for an injured and/or seriously ill child must permit a liberal approach
to the requirements of the Rule. Therefore, we feel some consideration should
have been given to the Claimant's absence on July
18, 1979,
since his
9
year old
son had been admitted to the hospital with a serious heart condition.
After carefully reviewing the entire record, the Board feels that a
7
day
suspension in this case would have served its purpose and so hold. The Claimant
shall be made whole for the work days encompassed in the remaining
8
calendar
day period, less any outside earnings he might have had. The
6
percent annual
interest is denied as per a long line of awards.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent set forth in Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
tonal Railroad Adjus Board
By
emarie Brasch - Administrat ve Assistant
Dated 'at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day
of
February,
1982.