Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEP1T BOARD Award No. 9201
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8877
2-C&NW-CM-'
82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Steven Briggs when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Careen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago sad North Western Transportation Company violated the
terms of Article V of the August 21,
1954
Agreement when Director Labor
Relations Fremon failed to notify the General Chairman of the reasons for
disallowing his appeal contained in letter dated June 12,
1979.
2. Passenger Truck Repairman Rufus Purdie was unjustly assessed fifteen
(15) days actual suspension arid made to service an additional fifteen (:15)
days which had been previously deferred, on March
6, 1979.
3. Passenger Truck Repairman Rufus Purdie was erroneously charged for his
responsibility for failing to report for duty at starting time on
February 2,
7, 8, 13
and
14, 1979.
4.
That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered
to compensate Passenger Truck Repairman Rufus for all time lost plus
6$
annual interest on all such lost wages during the time held out of
service, sad to make him whole for all benefits that are a condition of
employment in accordance with Rule
35.
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 end 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.
Parties to said dispute waived -right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On February 2,
7, 8, 13
and
14, 1979,
Claimant was late for work. He maintains
that he left home at least one hour early on those dates, but was still late due to
severe winter weather and the resulting overcrowding of public transportation.
H2
was 22 minutes late on the 2nd,
8
minutes on the 7th, 19 minutes on the 8th,
6
minutes on the 13th, and 33 minutes on the 14th. After investigating the matter,
the Carrier suspended the Claimant for 15 days, which activated as earlier deferred
15 day suspension.
The facts in this case are not in dispute, since the Claimant admits being late
as outlined above. The focal issue is whether there were mitigating circumstances
sufficient to justi_°y his tardiness.
Form 1. Award No. 9201
Pegs 2 Docket No.
$877
2-C&NW-CM-' 82 `~"!
A secondary issue concerns an gust 1,
1979
letter from W. J. Fremon, Director
of Labor Relations (Non-Operating) for the Carrier to Patrick J. Murphy, General
Chairman of the Carmen's Organization. In this letter Fremon denied the instant
claim with the following as the exclusive reasoning set forth:
"While my files at this time are not complete and I am
developing additional facts, based on information in
my possession it is necessary (that this case) be denied
for lack of support of schedule roles and agreements."
The Organization claims Fremon's letter is not in compliance with Article V,
Section 1 of the gust
1954
Agreement, which states in part:
"...
Should any such grievance be disallowed, the Carrier
shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify
whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his
representative) in writing of the reasons for such
disallowance."
Fremon's August 1,
1979
letter does, in a very loose sense, cite "lack of
support of schedule rules and agreements" as reasoning for disallowing the claim.
Such a general response, however, does little to inform the Organization and the
Claimant as to why the claim was disallowed, and does not seem to comply with the
inter of Article V, Section 1 of the August
1954
Agreement between the parties.
It appears that the parties who negotiated the language of Article Y contemplated
that the Carrier's
notification should
provide the Organization and Claimant with
information as to where the claim was (in the Carrier's view) defective.
Moreover, the Board has concluded from careful study of the record in this
matter that the Claimant made reasonable, good faith attempts to report for work on
time on the days in question, and that his failure to do so was through no fault of
his own. The Winter of
1979
was one of the most severe in recent decades, and the
Claimant's reference to unusually slow and overcrowded public transportation is
supported by other evidence in the record. His testimony that he left his hose
a minimum of one hour early on each of the
5
days is uncontraverted.
Furthermore, the Claimant testified during the investigation on the property
that his Foremar_, Pete Mauro, implicitly acknowledged that the bad weather was a
reasonable excuse fb r his tardiness. Mr. Mauro did not testify during the
investigation. And finally, the record contains no evidence that the Claimant was
disciplined or warned in any way after his tardiness on the 1st day (February 2)
of the
5
days in question. The Carrier apparently waited until the Claimant had been
tardy five times over the course of about twelve days before considering discipline.
Such action on the Carrier's part was capricious, in that it came down suddenly and
unpredictably on the Claimant.
Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the Claimant was unjustly assessed
fifteen (15) days suspension. The Carrier shall make the Claimant whole for all
time lest due to the suspension
and for all benefits except the 6°/ interest.
Force 1 Award No. 9201
pie 3
Docket No.
8877
2-C&NPl-C?d-' 82
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ7US IMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest : Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ~ p
sezarie Branch - Administrative Assistant
Dated atrChicago, Illinois, this 22nd of July, 1982.