Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9464
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9436
2-CR-FO-'
83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That, in violation of the current
agreement, Laborer
Leo M. Furey was
unjustly dismissed from service of the Carrier following trial held on
May
20, 198o.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make the aforementioned
Leo M. Furey whole by restoring him to Carrier's service, with seniority
rights unimpaired, made whole for all vacation rights, holidays, sick
leave benefits, and all other benefits that are a condition of employment
unimpaired, and compensated for all lost time plus ten (10°%) percent
interest annually on all lost wages, also reimbursement for all losses
sustained account of coverage under health and welfare and life insurance
agreements during the time he has been held out of 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,
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.
The dismissed Claimant, Leo M. Furey, was a laborer at the Carrier's New
Haven, Connecticut, MU Shop with thirty-four years of service. He was charged
with failure to report for duty on April
8, 16,
22,
23, 24,
25,
28, 29, 1960,
"... which in light of your previous attendance record constitutes excessive
absenteeism." The trial originally scheduled for May
8, 1980,
was held on
May 20.
The facts established at the trial show the Claimant has a substantial
record of prior discipline for absenteeism. As recently as April 21,
1980,
he
was issued a thirty day suspension for failure to report for duty. This suspension
was deferred. From January 1,
1979,
to April
30, 1980,
the Claimant was absent
a total of
186
days. The Organization argues it was improper for the Trial
Officer to allow the Claimant's past record to be entered into the transcript.
It also avers the Claimant did notify the Carrier of his most recent absences as
soon as possible.
F orm 1
Page 2
Award No. 9464
Docket No.
9436
2-CR-FO-'83
Unfortunately, for this long service employe, the record fails to support
the Organization's position. The Carrier's charge of excessive absenteeism
necessitates the introduction of evidence other than for the immediate absences
in question. This Board deems such evidence appropriate when the purpose is to
show that, over a period of substantial time, an individual's absence from duty
has become so sporadic and/or frequent as to constitute excessive absenteeism.
This Board regards the evidence developed at the trial to fully justify the
conclusion reached by the Carrier. Notwithstanding the Claimant's long years of
service, the record shows he has been granted frequent opportunities to alter
his attitude and fulfill his obligation to report for duty on a consistent basis.
Herein, the Claimant evidences a propensity to be habitually absent and, therefore
undependable. In weighing his years of service versus the Carrier's need and right
for employes to report to work as scheduled, this Board cannot find, under the
circumstances outlined herein, that the Carrier's action was either arbitrary or
unduly harsh discipline.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ~/~-s~
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
.t Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May, 1983.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division