Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9156
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9192
2-CMStP&P-EW-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas V. Bender when award was rendered.
( Internaticnal Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
violated the agreement when Electrician W. T. Whitt was unjustly disciplined
with a thirty (30) day suspension, fifteen
(15)
days of which were actual,
commencing September 13, 1979 and ending September 27, 1979, and the
other fifteen
(15)
days of which were deferred with one year probationary
period, causing Electrician W. T. Whitt to lose eleven (11) days of
compensation.
2. That, accordingly, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad Company be ordered to make Mr. W. T. Whitt whole by compensating
Mr. Whitt for eleven days at 9.27 per hour (815.76) and by expurgating
the fifteen days of deferred suspension with one year. probationary
period.
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 employ a 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.
The Claimant in this case was given a thirty (30) day suspension (fifteen
(15) days actual and fifteen
(15)
held in abeyance for one year).
On July 24, 1979, the Claimant was counseled by his supervisor regarding his
attendance. This meeting was precipitated by the Claimant's failure to protect
his assignment on July 8, 15 and 22, 1979. Apparently, the Claimant did not pay
strict attention to the discussion or discounted the importance to the carrier of
his conscientious attention to his job. On August
5
and 12, 1979 he once again
failed to protect his assignment. On August
5, 1979
Claimant's wife did call to
advise the Carrier that her husband would not be reporting for duty.
In response to the Claimant's conduct following the July 24,
1979
conference
the Carrier noticed the Claimant for an investigation which was held focusing nn the
Claimant's attendance problem. During the course of the investigation the Claimant
F orm I
Page 2
Award No. 9156
Docket No. 9192
2-CMStP&P-EW-'82
admitted his failure to protect his assignment On the dates listed supra and his
concurrent failure to advise the Carrier that he would not be in to work. The
Carrier, acting upon the Claimant's admissions issued the thirty (30) day suspension
being contested here.
The record contains substantial evidence that the Claimant did fail to notify
the Carrier of his absences on the dates charged and further that Claimant
seemingly made no effort to notify his supervisor. The scope of this Board's
review was articulately stated in Second Division Award No.
7473
(Weiss). Referee
Weiss points out that we do not consider cases on a de navo basis. Nor may we
substitute our judgement for that of the Carrier. If the record contains substantial
evidence the Carrier's assessment of discipline will not be disturbed unless the
Carrier's arbitrary or capricious. See also: Second Division Award
No77023
(Marx); Second Division Award No. 8566 (LaRocco).
In the instant case the penalty assessed is so excessive as to be unjust and
arbitrary. A fifteen day actual suspension is sufficient to impress an employe
that attendance rules must be observed. No business can function and survive
when its employes are absent so frequently that they become in fact part time.
A Carrier has a right to expect faithful service from its employes. Moreover,
by acting promptly and decisively, hopefully the Carrier has succeeded in changing
the Claimant's attitude toward absenteeism. And, this should be the goal of
discipline; corrective as opposed to strictly punitive in nature. Fifteen
(15)
days actual suspension will serve that function.
The assessment of a thirty
(30)
day suspension is reduced to a fifteen
(15)
day actual suspension. The Claimant's record shall be changed to reflect this
modification.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By_
--'S semarie Brasch Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June, 1982.