Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9438
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9070
2-I&N-CM-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ~ and Canada
(
( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
I. That Carman G. B. Reed was dismissed from service in violation of the
Current Agreement on September 10,
1979,
and
2. Accordingly, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad should be ordered to:
(a) Restore him to service with seniority and all employee rights
unimpaired.
(b) Compensate him for all time lost as a result of his dismissal with
interest at the rate of
6%
per annum on all money due him, and
(c) Pay premiums for his hospital, surgical, medical, group life
insurance and supplemental sickness benefits for the entire time
he is withheld from service.
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 absent on two consecutive Fridays in August,
1979·
At an
investigation held on August 21,
1979
to determine if Claimant was absent without:
permission, Claimant testified that he tried to call the Carrier's Decoursey Shops
but his call went unanswered. The Train Yard Foreman on Claimant's shift
testified not only that Claimant failed to report off duty on August 3 and 10,
1979
but also that an employe was on duty to answer the telephone. According to
Claimant, he was unable to work on August 3,
1979
because his truck broke down.
On August 10,
1979,
he was moving furniture.
Neither
of
Claimant's excuses justified his absences. Claimant's duty to
regularly protect his assignment must take precedence over personal projects. In
addition, Claimant aggravated the offense by failing to properly mark off his
assigned shift. The record reveals that if Claimant had called the Carrier, his
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9438
Docket No. 9070
2-L&N-CM-'83
telephone call would have been received. Even if Claimant received no answer, he
should have made repeated attempts to contact his supervisor.
While Claimant was absent on only two days, his prior record demonstrates
that he lacks any interest in working for the Carrier. On July
6,
1978, after
Claimant had been disciplined several times for excessive absenteeism, the
Carrier discharged Claimant. He was subsequently reinstated on a leniency basis.
Since Claimant's reinstatement, he has been reprimanded and suspended for excessive
absences. The Carrier provided Claimant with ample opportunity to improve his
attendance record. Rather than taking advantage of the opportunity, Claimant
continued to be absent at an excessive rate. Due to Claimant's poor prior
record and his inability to improve his attendance record, we must uphold the
Carrier's decision to dismiss Claimant from service.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Brie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April, 1983.