Form I
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
90'E'4
SECOND
DIBISION Docket No.
9113
2-BN-MA-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers
(
( Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement and the Burlington Northern schedule
of rules, the Carrier unjustly censured and suspended Machinist J. A.
Jamieson from service for a period of five working days from September
15, 1979
through September
19, 1979,
inclusive.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier rescind its censure of Machinist
Jamieson and compensate him for all wages lost as a result of said
suspension.
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. Jamieson, was notified by letter dated August
9, 1979
to appear
for an investigation on August 14,
1979.
The purpose was to determine his
responsibility in connection with his alleged failure to protect his assignment
as machinist by absenting himself without authority on August 4,
1979.
The
investigation was held as scheduled and following that properly conducted hearizag,
the penalty herein complained of was assessed. There is no controversy with
respect to the facts in this case. On the day in question Claimant, for personal
reasons, undertook a trip from his domicile in Havre, Montana to Billings,
Montana. The distance round trip is approximately 540 miles. On his return trip
he testified that his car broke down and he had some difficulty in getting to a
telephone to call his supervisor. He finally called his supervisor from Ray,
Montana, a considerable distance from work, at approximately 10:50 P.M. to
request permission to be absent or late to work. His shift started at 11:00 P.iK.
and he estimated that he could be at work at 3:00 A.M. The supervisor responded
that if he couldn't make it before 3:00 A.M. there was no use coming to work.
He actually arrived in the work area at x+:00 A.M., but did not appear for work.
The Carrier called another employee to fulfill his assignment. Mr. Jamieson
admitted that he was absent from work and the supervisor did not grant him
F orm 1
Page 2
Award No. 904+
Docket No. 9113
2-BN-MA-182
permission. The rule under the circumstances is clear. It reads in pertinent
part
"... Employees must not absent themselves from duty,
exchange duties with, or substitute others in their
place without proper authority."
It is clear from the record that Claimant violated the rule.
The Organization defends Mr. Jamieson by claiming that he should have been
granted authority by his supervisor since the break down constituted an event
beyond his control and, therefore, he was constructively in compliance with the
rule. That argument constitutes a request for lenient application of the rule.
However, meritorious that request may be, it is a right reserved to the Carrier,
not this Board. Absent clear and credible evidence that the Carrier misused
its authority, we are constrained from modification of the contract language.
A prudent individual undertaking a trip of such length would have allowed for
exigencies and sought permission in advance. While Claimant may feel that the
Carrier's interpretation was very strict, it was within its legal rights to so
determine. Accordingly, this Board must uphold that decision.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ~C
osemarie Brasch A inistrative Assistant
Dat d at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April,
1982.
NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division