Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9022
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9005
2-C&o-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Freight Car Repairer-Tentative, Harold L. Hinkle, Jr., was
unjustly dismissed from service as result of investigation held. in
office of General Plant Manager at Raceland Car Shop at 10:00 a.m.,
Monday, June 11,
1979
fn violation of Rule
37
of the Shop Crafts
Agreement.
2. Accordingly, Harold L. Hinkle, Jr. is entitled to be restored to service
with seniority rights and all other benefits that are a condition of
employment unimpaired.
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,
1934.
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 was charged by Carrier with excessive absenteeism. By letter
of May
9, 1979,
Claimant was notified of an investigation to be held on
may 31,
1979.
He was charged with being absent a total of
89
days since November
1978.
The certified mail was signed for by Mrs. Harold Hinkle on May 14,
1979.
By
subsequent letter of May
31, 1979,
the investigation was rescheduled for June 11,
1979.
This certified piece of mail was signed for by Harold Hinkle, Sr., on
June 2,
1979.
Claimant did not appear. The local Chairman and Assistant Chairman
were present.
The organization charges the Carrier's actions on June 11,
1979,
were
arbitrary and capricious, and the discipline rendered unjust and severe. Claimant
was not present and deprived of an opportunity to defend himself. Receipt of
certified mail was not that of Claimant. Carrier has no knowledge Claimant
received letter. Lastly, the organization argues that, by not setting forth the
actual days of absence, Carrier failed to set forth a precise charge under Rule
37.
Form 1 Award No. :022
Page 2 Docket No.
9005
2-C&O-CM-'82
The Carrier's letter of May 9, 1979, advised Claimant he was charged with
excessive absenteeism totalling 89 days from November 1978, broken down as
follows:
5
days sickness, 1 day personal business, 1 day transportation, I
day family sickness, 81 days no report in direct violation of Rule 21 of the
Shop Crafts Agreement. This letter, in accordance with past Board decisions, met
the requirement of being sufficiently precise in order for Claimant to understand
the charge and adequately defend himself against it. The certified letter of
May
31,
1979, was sent to the Claimant's address of record and the same address
used in the May 9, 1979, notice of charge and investigation. The evidence
supports a conclusion the contested letter of notice was received at Claimant's
residence in a timely and appropriate manner.
Sixty-six percent absence over a
135
working day period is excessive.
Furthermore, the 81 instances of "no report" included amongst the-89 absences
disclose no reason or good cause for these specific "no reports".' Under any
acceptable definition of excessive absenteeism, this Claimant's record falls
within such parameters. The Carrier conducted a fair and impartial investigation
notwithstanding.Claimant's non-attendance. The evidence supports the charge of
excessive absenteeism. There is absolutely no merit in disturbing the conclusions
reached or the penalty imposed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By / ._osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April, 1982.