Form 1 NATICNAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9161
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9213
2-CR-EW-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas V. Bender when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation

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 jurisdictiond over the dispute involved herein.



The Claimant has been employed as an Electrician by ConRail for 3k years. The Claimant was terminated for excessive absenteeism following a formal investigation held on March 26, 1980. The absenteeism cited in the notice of investigation was:



The investigation record shows that the Claimant did report to the Carrier that he was ill for the period February 24-28, 1980. The March period went unexplained, there was some mention of a burned out ignition.

There is no question that the record supports with substantial evidence the fact that the Claimant was not at work on the dates listed herein. The fact that the Claimant called in to advise the Carrier of his absence does not resolve the problem. Valid excuse or no, the Carrier needs a certain number of people to operate. And, if an employe proves, aver a reasonable period of time that he/she is not reliable, the Carrier may terminate that employe. The Referee in Second Division Award No. 7348 (McBrearty) sums up our view:
Form 1 Award No. 9161
Page 2 Docket No. 9213
2-CR-EW-182 MW



The Claimant's record since his employment was attached to the investigation transcript. The record cannot and should not be used to sustain the charge immediately under review. It does show the depth of the Claimant's knowledge, and how seriously he has taken his duties as an employee. The Claimant has been disciplined four separate occasions in the prior 3k years. And he was disciplined for an unrelated matter for which he received a 30 day record suspension.

In Third Division Award No. 19537 (Lieberman), the Referee discussed the function of discipline:



Given this Claimant's record, further suspension/corrective discipline would do no good and further, since the underlying charge was proven we cannot substitute our judgement for that of the Carrier. In light of the Claimant's record, termination is not an unreasonable arbitrary or capricious exercise of managerial function.






                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

        By

      semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June, 1982.