Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
9
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9108
2 -EJ&E -F O-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Laborer Cedric J. Randolph was unjustly dismissed from service by
the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad.
2. That accordingly, the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad be ordered to
return laborer Randolph to work immediately, with seniority rights,
vacation rights, and all other benefits that are a condition of employ
ment, unimpaired, with compensation for all lost time plus
6°%
annual
interest. We further request reimbursement of all losses sustained
account loss of coverage under Health and Welfare and Life Insurance
Agreements during the time held out of service.
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.
Claimant, Mr. Randolph, was notified by letter to appear for an investigation
on March
7, 1980
to develop the facts and responsibility in connection with the
following:
"1) Your alleged failure to report for duty at x+:00 PM at
Kirk Yard Roundhouse, Gary, Indiana, on Wednesday,
February
13, 1980.
2) Absenting yourself from your assignment under the alleged
false pretense of illness since February
14, 1980.
3)
Conduct unbecoming an employee in that you were arrested
at approximately 11:00 A.M., Wednesday, February 13,
1980
for an alleged armed robbery."
At the request of the Organization, the investigation was postponed and
eventually held on March
17, 1980.
Following that hearing the penalty herein
complained of was assessed. There is no dispute with respect to the facts in
this case. Claimant was apprehended with-others by--a police road block after
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
9040
Docket No.
9108
2-EJ&E-=FO-' 82
a chase of some length. He was incarcerated in the jail at Hammond, Indiana, on
charges of participating in armed robbery. This event took place on February 1-;,
1980 and Mr. Randolph remained in jail until March
8, 1980,
when bond was posted.
On the morning of February 14, his mother called in to report that Claimant was
ill and would not be at work. She repeated the same type call on February 20.
During this period of time, Mr. Randolph made no effort to contact the Carrier.
The gravaman of the Organization's defense resides in its view that Claimant
was unavoidably detained from work and he has not been judged guilty since a trial
has not been held. Further, it claims that Mr. Randolph did not falsify the reason
for absence since his mother made the call. While it may be true, as claimed by
the Organization, that Claimant could not call the Carrier on the evening of
February 13, as he was only allotted one call and that was made to his family,
there is no claim that
he could not have contacted the Carrier on-the following
day or any day thereafter. Mr. Randolph cannot hide behind the well intentioned
actions of his mother to excuse his own failure to report absence as required by
the contract.
Claimant was absent from his assignment February
13, 1980
to March 12, 1980.
During this period of time no real effort was made to inform the company as
required by the agreement. It is clear that Mr. Randolph was absent for a considerable period of time without excuse or notification as charged. Such actions have
long been held by this Board to be a dismissable offense. Claimant had been
employed by the Carrier for approximately one year and during that period of time
his record was far from exemplary. In view of the foregoing and the entire
record we find that the Carrier was within its legal rights in assessing the
penalty.
Since the foregoing is sufficient to justify the penalty we need not burden
the record with comment on Charge No. Three.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTI"ENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April, 1982.