Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJiJSMENT BOARD Award No. 9121
SECOND DTJISION Docket No. 86'+5
2-D&RGW-F O-' z32
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers

Parties to Dispute: ~ Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:



That accordingly, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company be ordered to reinstate Mr. Phillip Quints.na to service with seniority rights, vacation rights, and all other benefits hat are a condition of employment, unimpaired; with compensation for 311

. lost time plus 6% annual interest.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustrnent Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispui:e are respectively carrier and employs 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.



Claimant Phillip Quintana is a Laborer in ;terrier's Burnham Shops in Denlr°~. Colorado. On December 21, 1978, Claimant was observed by two supervisors in a prone position on a bench in the shop locker room. Claimant was told by his supervisor to punch out and go home. Claimant was subsequently given notice to attend a hearing into the matter to determine the facts and place responsibility., if any, in connection with Claimant's alleged failure to attend to his duties on the date in question.

The hearing was held on January 18, 1979. As a result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty as charged and dismissed from service, effective January 25, 1979. A cony of the transcript of that hearing has been reads a part of the record of this case.
Foxes 1 Page 2

Award No. 9121
Docket No. 86.5
2-D&RGW-FO-' 82

The organization claims that Carrier acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, abused its managerial discretion, and dismissed Claimant for reasons other than those he was charged with. Carrier contends Claimant was in fact sleeping on the job and did not respond to the public address system when called. When this infraction is considered together with his poor work and t:L-ne and attendance record, it oust be concluded that Carrier had more than sufficient grounds to discharge Claimant.

A review of the record of this case reveals that Claimant was afforded all procedural and substantive rights due him by agreement and that he was, in fact, guilty of failure to attend to his duties and willful neglect of duty. He was observed sleeping by two supervisors. Sleeping on the job can be grounds for dismissal from service, as this Board has so stated (see Award No. 8712, LaRocco) on numerous occasions.

When this infraction is considered in light of Claimant's past record, numerous incidents of failure to protect his assignment, and a dismissal and reinstatement on a leniency basis, it must be concluded that there is no basis on which the Board can modify ox set aside the discipline in this case.

A W A R D

Clam denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS=-NT BOARD
By Order of Second Division

BY
~to~emi
J

Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.