Form 1
Parties to Dispute:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTYMTT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 9118
Docket No.
8612
2-WT- GM-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
{Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
{Washington Terminal Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Washington Terminal Company violated the controlling agreement when trey unjustly dismissed Car Cleaner D. A. Fisher as a
result of an investigation held on February
8, 199.
That accordingly the Washington Terminal Company be ordered to
return IAr. Fischer to the service of the Company with seniority
and vacation rights unimpaired and compensated for his net wage
loss due to this unjust dismissal.
2.
Findings:
The Second Division of the
Adjustment
Foam., 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,
193+.
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 D. A. Fischer, a Car Cleaner in Carrier's employ at the Washington
Terminal, was dismissed from service for excessive absenteeism.
On February 1,
1979s
Carrier notified Claimant that he should report for
a hearing into charges that he had been absent from duty seven days during the
month of January
199.
The hearing was held as scheduled. Claimant was found
guilty as charged and dismissed from service.
The Organization alleges that Claimant was unjustly discharged, since his
days of absence in January
199
were all legitimate. It further argues that
Carrier dismissed Claimant because of his bad record and not because of the
incidents specified in the charges.
Form 1 Award
Pro. 9118
Page 2 Docket No.
8612
2-WT-CM-'82
A
review of the record reveals that Claimant was in fact absent
from work on the days specified in the charges and that his work record
leaves much to be desired. Carrier in this instance has attempted,
through progressive discipline and counseling, to impress Claimant with
his obligation to appear at work on a regular and tiBiely basis. He has
failed to respond. Carrier need not maintain persons in its employ who
do not report for work when required to do so. This Board, as well as
every other Division of the
NRAFs,
has consistently taken that position.
There are numerous cases on this point.
Carrier was within its right to discipline Claimant for his failure on seven occasions to show up for work during the month of January
1979.
When this is considered, together with the fact that he has been
disciplined on four previous occasions for excessive loss of time and on
one occasion for violation of safety rules in a short 18-month career with
the Company, one must conclude that dismissal from. service is appropriate.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJT_TS~IVT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
i
_ .-~t-t~ ~ v'
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of
June, 1982.