Form 1 NATIONAL
RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9425
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9+77
2-cR-MA-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Sceerce when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ~ Aerospace Workers
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to restore Machinist
C. Travis to service and compensate him for all pay lost up to time of
restoration to service at the prevailing Machinist rate of pay.
2. That Machinist C. Travis be compensated for all insurance benefits,
vacation benefits, holiday benefits and any other benefits that may have
accrued and were lost during this period, in accordance with Rule
7-A-1 (e) of the controlling Agreement which was effective May 1,
1979.
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.
Claimant was classified as a Machinist and assigned to the
7:00
P.m. -
I2:00 midnight tour at the Carrier's Selkirk, New York Diesel Terminal. The
record shows that the Claimant absented himself from duty on March 20,
1980
and
six dates in April of that year: April
9, 14, 15, 16, 19
and 21. The Claimant,
while admitting to such absences, claimed concern over the safety for other
employes had he reported for duty on those days, since he was purportedly under
the influence of alcohol. The Claimant had already had a 30-day disciplinary
suspension imposed on him for absenting himself for seven
(7)
days in March of
that year. The Organization points to the Carrier's own program for alcoholism
recovery and the Claimant's willingness to participate in its contention that
dismissal was harsh, punitive and not corrective.
The increasing attention given in the industrial setting to alcohol abuse
as a disease is well documented, and while the Carrier has unilaterally instituted
a program of assistance in this regard, it is not a condition of the bargaining
relationship. It would appear that the Claimant embraced the notion of assistance
under such program only after he had had the extended period of absenteeism cited
herein and in anticipation of additional discipline, possibly dismissal, for the
same offense. Thus his decision to seek help came after one offense too many -the one that drew for himself dismissal. Clearly, the Carrier is entitled to
Form I
Page 2
Award No. 9425
Docket No.
9+77
2-cR-Ma-'83
be able to expect a dependable work force; the Claimant's actions here must
be construed as a repudiation of his employment obligation.
While we are mindful of the Claimant's ten or so years of apparently good
service for the most part, it would be an excessive use of this Board's authority
to order the Carrier to reinstate him. Should the Claimant overcome his alcohol
dependency, whether he can effect a return to duty would have to be a decision for
the Carrier to make.
A WAR
D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL
RAURQAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
B~
/'F;bsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
'D'~ated(at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of March, 1983.