Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTr1ENT BOARD Award No. 9225
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9007
2-CMStP&P-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Coach Cleaner Edna Lee Washington was unjustly dismissed from the
service of the Milwaukee Road on October
4,
1979 as result of a hearing
held on September 27, 1979.
2. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to restore Coach Cleaner Edna Lee Washington to service and made
whole for all rights and benefits that are a condition of employment
such as, but not limited to, seniority, vacation, holidays, medical,
dental, welfare, surgical, and all group insurance benefits.
3.
That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company he
ordered to compensate Coach Cleaner Edna Lee Washington for all lost time
as result of her unjust dismissal from service.
That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to reimburse Coach Cleaner Edna Lee Washington for all losses
sustained account loss of coverage under health, medical, welfare and
group insurance benefits during such time as she is held out of service.
5.
That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to pay Coach Cleaner Edna Lee Washington interest at the
6
rate per annum for any and all payment she may receive as result of this
claim.
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,
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.
The dismissal of the Claimant is for unauthorized and unexcused absence.
Claimant began her employment with Carrier on December 27, 1978. On March 12,
1979 Claimant was given a Letter of Warning advising her that her attendance
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9225
Docket No. 9007
2-CMStP&P-CM-'82
for the months of January through March was unsatisfactory and should be improved.
On June 21, 1979, Claimant was issued another Letter of Warning involving seven
absences and a tardy from April through June. She was informed this record did
not meet the requirements of her job. On September 18, 1979, Claimant was
notified that a hearing would be held on September 27, 1979, involving charges,
as follows:
"Charge r~r-I - Your alleged failure to protect your assignment on
days in July, August, and September as follows:
July 24 -Tuesday -Absent
August 1 Wednesday Absent
2 Thursday Absent
29 Wednesday Absent
September
16
Sunday Absent
17 Monday Absent
Charge #2 - Your alleged failure to notify your Foreman that you
would be unable to protect your assignment on days in
July and August, as follows: July 24, Tuesday;
August 1, Wednesday; August 2, Thursday; and
August 29, Wednesday."
The hearing was held as scheduled and, thereafter, Claimant was dismissed
from service effective October 4, 1979. The Organization asserts Claimant was
unjustly dealt with inasmuch as a reasonable doubt exists the Claimant was aware
of the rule covering instances of absenteeism and tardiness; therefore, Carrier
has failed to meet its required burden of proof. The Organization further contends
that even if Claimant had been guilty as charged, the ultimate penalty of dismissal
was out of proportion to the seriousness of the charges.
The basic facts are undisputed. In a period of approximately nine months
beginning with Claimant's employment on December 27, 1978, she was absent a total of
nineteen (19) days and was tardy twice. Two Letters of Warning were issued wherein
Claimant was clearly made aware she was not protecting her assignment and could
be subject to disciplinary action. After the June 21, 1979, Letter of Warning,
Claimant was absent six times in less than three months. After a careful review
of this record, this Board is satisfied that Claimant was properly counseled and
warned about her attendance. This record contains substantial evidence supporting
the Carrier's action. Having so found, this Board is unwilling to disturb the
penalty imposed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board .,·~y
By
bsemarie Brasc - Adminfs-trative Assistant
Dated'at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.