Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8922
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
851+
2-S
PT-EW-'
82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Francis X. Quinn when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, Mechanical Department Electrician
S. M. Rankle was unjustly treated when he was dismissed from service
on October
5, 1978,
following investigation for alleged violation of a
portion of Rule
810
of the General Rules and Regulations of the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company. Said alleged violation commencing on
August
4, 1978_
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to:
(e) Restore Claimant Mr. S. M. Runkle to service with all rights
unimpaired including service and seniority, loss of wages,
vacation, payment of hospital, medical insurance, group disability
insurance, railroad retirement contributions and loss of wages
including interest at the rate of
6%
per annum.
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, 193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
S. M. Rankle (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) entered Carrier's
service on July
24, 1961
as an electrician.
On August 1, 1978 Claimant returned to duty following a leave of absence.
On August 2,
1978
he failed to report for duty; however, returned to work on
August
3, 1978.
Thereafter, Claimant failed to report for duty from August
4
to September
15, 1978.
The evidence adduced at the formal hearing established Claimant's responsibility in connection with his unauthorized absence from duty; his action
constituting a violation of Rule 810 of the General Rules and Regulations, that
part reading:
Form 1
Page 2
record:
Award No.
8922
Docket No.
851+
2-SPT-EW-'82
"Rule 810: Continued failure by employes to protect their
employment shall be sufficiant cause for
dismissal."
The following are excerpts of testimony taken at the formal hearing:
"TESTIMONY OF ETECTRICIAN S. M. RUNKIZ - INTERROGATED BY GENERAL
FOREMAN R. E. PAIMITER
Did you have permission to engage in this business knowing
it would interfere with your performance with the Southern
Pacific from
8/4
to
9/15?
Let's put it this way. Everyone knew what I was doing, and
nobody told me I couldn't do any differently.
I will repeat the question. Did you have permission to
engage in this business from
8/x+/78
to
9/15/78
knowing that
it would interfere with your performance with the SP?
I had no written permission, no.
Did you have authority to be absent from
8/x+/78
to the
present?
No.
Mr. Runkle, why did you come back to work on August 1, absent
yourself on August 2, and then work on August
3?
Why? I was attempting to make a valid attempt to come back
to work. My body couldn't handle it."
The above-quoted excerpts of testimony establish Claimant's responsibility
for violation of Carrier's rules as charged and that the assessment of discipline
was justified and commensurate with the offense.
The Claimant had been cautioned on several occasions prior to his dismissal
frost service that it was necessary to improve his attendance record and eliminate
his excessive absenteeism which was primarily due to his working in the roofing
business. The Carrier accommodated the Claimant by granting him a total of
90
days' Leave of absence for the specific purpose of reaching a decision of whether
he wanted a career with the Company or as a roofing contractor.
The following letter dated April
6, 1978
was placed on Claimant's personnel.
"Mr. R. R. Ferdericksen
Plant Manager
Roseville, Calif.
Subject: Al~sentceism Elect. S. M. Runkle
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 8922
Docket No.
851+
2-SPT-EW-'82
In December of
1977,
I had Mr. Runkle in my office regarding
his excessive absenteessm, that it was common knowledge that
he was in the contracting business. That if he did not make
decision to improve his absenteeism the first three months of
1978
I would request that action be taken under General Rule
#810, or that he could request a leave of absence to make his
decision on employment.
Out of
65
working days he has been absent 26 days. He has
worked only
3
Fridays having rest on Saturday and Sunday.
I have again talked with Mr. Runkle on
4-5-1978
and his
comment was that his not working on Fridays was relief
Foreman J. Taylor being on duty and he would not work for
this man. That he was still not able to make a decision
on his employment but would improve his absenteeism.
As this condition has existed for a
lon.g
time, I feel action
should be taken under General Rule =/f81C_
/s/ Boyce N. 0'Coy
/t/ B. N. 0'COY
General Foreman"
At the formal hearing Claimant admitted that he had no authority to be
absent and offered no credible evidence
in
his defense. Therefore, we will deny
the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad
Adjustment Board
_ y
....
By
w ~ , ~~f~ _
.~.
osemarie Brasch - A ministrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of February, 1982.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENP BOARD
By Order of Second Division