F orm 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9473
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9513
2-SOU-FO-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward M. Hogan when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
_Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement Laborer W. E. Davenport,
I. D. No. x+11-78-7359, was unjustly dismissed from the service of the
Southern Railway Company on February 25, 1981, after a formal investiga
tion was held on February 23,
1981.
2. That accordingly Laborer W. E. Davenport be restored to service at
Southern Chattanooga Diesel Shop, Chattanooga, Tennessee, be compensated
for all lost time, vacation, health and welfare, hospital, life insurance
and dental insurance be paid effective February 25, 1981, and the
payment of
6°%
interest be added thereto.
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant was dismissed following a preliminary investigation on the charges
of excessive absenteeism. This penalty was held in abeyance pursuant to the
request of the Local Chairman for a formal investigation. Following this hearing,
Claimant was notified by the Carrier that he was found guilty of the charges of
excessive absenteeism and dismissed from the service of the Carrier.
The Claimant raises two issues to be considered by this Board. First, that
he was not guilty of excessive absenteeism, and second, that the dismissal was
not proper.
With respect to the first issue (excessive absenteeism), there can be no
question that the Agreement (Rules 30 and 55(b)) outline the responsibilities for
an employe to protect his/her assignment, except of course, in the event of
sickness and other good cause. The Claimant's time cards for the most recent
20 days of work prior to the investigation showed that the Claimant had missed
9 out of the 20 working days. In examining the Claimant's work history for his
entire employment period with the Carrier, it is evident that the Claimant had
Form 1 Award No. 9473
Page 2 Docket No. 9513
2-SOU-FO-183
missed quite a significant amount of work. However, we will not examine any of
the prior absences with respect to the issue of "excessive absenteeism" for the
basis of the original charge. To do so would be unfair to the Claimant as he was
not notified that the period to be considered in the investigation was his entire
work history with the Carrier. Only the period cited in the original charges
can be considered by this Board for the purpose of considering his claim.
This Board has consistently held that failure to protect one's work assignment
is a serious offense.
In Second Division Award No. 7348, we stated:
"When an employee is so consistently and habitually absent over
a long period of time that his employment becomes a serious
liability rather than an asset, the carrier is entitled to
terminate his services."
In Second Division Award No. 9172, we held:
"...
no carrier can be expected to operate a safe and efficient
operation unless employees take seriously their duty and
obligation to report to work and protect their assignment."
Absent evidence of abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious behavior which
would impede the outcome of a fair and impartial hearing, this Board will not
substitute its judgment for that of the hearing officer. This is a well-established
holding which applies to the instant case. We find nothing in the record to
substantiate our interference with the findings as adduced by the hearing officer
with respect to the charges of excessive absenteeism. In fact, our examination
would yield a similar determination.
We therefore face the second issue as presented by the Claimant as to whether
the penalty of dismissal was warranted for the Claimant's behavior. We find that
dismissal was appropriate in this case. In addition to the Claimant's prior work
history, his disciplinary record is replete with reprimands and even suspensions
for the same charge as faced in the instant case. The Carrier cannot be expected
to permit this type of behavior to continue. At some point, the Carrier is
entitled to sever the employment relationship with the employe who has over
time demonstrated that he is not committed to the service of the Carrier. We
find that the Carrier was fully justified to impose the penalty of dismissal in
this case. As we stated in Second Division Award No.
7852:
"An employee has an obligation to report to work regularly and on
time
...
this is a fundamental aspect of the employment relationship.
Carrier cannot be criticized for attempting to take firm measures
to deter excessive absenteeism and tardiness."
We cannot uphold the claim of the Organization.
Form 1
Pa ge
3
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 9473
Docket No. 9513
2-SOU-FO-183
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
`r
emarie Brasch -Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May, 1983.