Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8949
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9055
2-C&NW-EW-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Clarence H. Herrington when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Emplo_yes:





Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that

Tie 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.



Claimant was employed by the Carrier on September 9, 1971. On December 11, 1979, Claimant did not report for duty at his assigned starting time at 7:00 A.M., At approximately 10:00 A.M., he called the shop's General Foreman and advised that he had overslept and was sick. On December 19, 1979, Claimant was directed to appear for formal investigation on the following charge:



The investigation was held on January 2, 1980.

The Organization takes the position that Claimant was in conformity with Rule 20 of the Agreement which is sufficient to offset any alleged violation of Rule 14 of the General Regulations. When discussing the two rules in a prior dispute involved with this Carrier, Public Law Board No. 2512, Award No. 1 (Herbert L. Marx, Jr.) held:
':,fi,r~. Award No. 8949
°4%F;e Docket No. 9055
2-C&NW-EW-'82
"The Board determines that there is no necessary conflict between
the two rules. Rule 14 sets general standards for attendance to duty
which may be expected of employes. Rule 20 provides specific
reporting requirements. While compliance with Rule 20 is of
central importance, such compliance does not necessarily provide
ireans whereby an employe may absent himself from duty."

This Board agrees with the Findings of award supra and so holds (see Award 8750 and awards referred to therein.)

We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the investigation conducted on January 2, 1980. Discipline was warranted; however, in view of the Claimant's length of service and review of his personal record, which is free of any discipline, we do not believe that this infraction warrants a 30 day deferred suspension. Because this was the first disciplinary action against the Claimant in over 8 years of service we will reduce the aforesal. deferred suspension to ten (10) days deferred suspension to reflect a more Judicious balance between the offense and the commensurate penalty.






                            By Order (if Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By _ _ ... J ~-4 -,.y
                            ! ~.


      emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of March, 1982