Form I NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9077
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8695
2-WP-FO-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John J. Mikrut, Jr. when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute: (
( Western Pacific Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:













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.



Claimant, a Fuel Truck Attendant with service date of May 4, 1978, at Carrier's yard facilities at San Jose, California, was charged with "... alleged unauthorized absence from your regular assignment October 23, 24, and 25, 1978." Pursuant to an investigation which was held in absentia on October 31, 1978, Claimant was adjudged guilty as charged and was dismissed from Carrier's service effective November 9, 1978. Said dismissal is the basis of the instant claim.

Organization's basic position in this dispute is that Carrier's dismissal of Claimant was an unjust action since Claimant had good reason for his absence in that he had to return home to Akron, Ohio because "his parents were ill". Additionally, Organization further contends that Claimant personally informed the Yardmaster of his intended actions who in turn relayed this information to Claimant's Supervisor. Organization thus argues that, given the foregoing, Claimant's three days absence was not unreasonable and that Carrier's subsequent
Form 1 Award No. 9077
Page 2 Docket No. 8695
2-WP-FO-182

dismissal of Claimant was much too severe a penalty to assess (Second Division Awards 1157, 1189, 1191, 1215, 1513, and 4132).


because: (1) there is no dispute that Claimant was absent as charged; (2) said
absence was without proper authority; and (3) Claimant's continuing absence and
his failure to appear at his own investigation hearing clearly warrants the
conclusion that Claimant is not even serious about continuing his employment
relationship with Carrier. As support for the foregoing Carrier asserts that
Claimant did not have the right to merely inform the Yardmaster that he was
taking "time off"; and that by engaging in such action Claimant committed a
serious infraction which is more than adequate grounds for permanent dismissal
(Second Division Awards 3874, 6285, and 6465; Third Division Awards 14601, 16860
and 19791; and Fourth Division Award 2595). °

Carrier's final significant area of argumentation in this dispute is that Claimant's belated written excuse does not support Claimant's original contention as presented by Organization since Claimant had approximately from October 23rd to the 27th to contact his supervisor and request a leave of absence before the investigation but he failed to do so; and that Claimant is not interested in retaining his position with Carrier since Carrier, through the organization, offered Claimant conditional reinstatement, provided Claimant's excuse could be substantiated, but Organization could not even get Claimant to respond to its inquiries.


presented in this matter, the Board is of the opinion that Claimants Organization's
position cannot be supported and thus the claim, as presented, must fall. The
aforestated conclusion, for the most part, is predicated upon the fact that
claimant's account of the incident is either inconsistent or is inaccurate in
several critical aspects.

In this regard, the record shows that Claimant's last day of work was Friday, October 20, 1978, and that Claimant picked up his pay check on the night of October 24, 1978, at the San Jose Yard Office. However, Claimant, in his letter to Carrier, indicates that "I Boyd Fairbee on Sunday 10-20-78 was called home for emergency reasons" and "I intended to call Monday (10-21-78) but was tied up, and it slipped my mind with other matters going on."

Not only does the foregoing indicate that Claimant is apparently in error, regarding certain of the details concerning his absence; but, mare importantly, such a revelation clearly indicates that Claimant, by his own account, remained in San Jose either five days (20th through 24th) or three days (Sunday through Tuesday) during which period of time Claimant could have--should have contacted Carrier, reported his anticipated absence, and requested leave. Such a failure on Claimant's part is inexcusable and Claimant must now suffer the consequences of his dereliction. Under these circumstances, the penalty of discharge is not an unreasonable penalty to assess, and any determination regarding the extension of leniency in such a situation must be initiated by Carrier and cannot properly be directed by the Board.
Form 1
Page 3

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Award No. 9077
Docket No. 8695
2-WP-FO-'82

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By >Lc
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant