Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9547
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8747
2_CR_EW_'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the terms of the current agreement Dynamonam John J.
Piccarelli was unjustly dismissed from service of the Consolidated
Rail Corporation (ConRail) on March 14, 1979.
2. That accordingly the Consolidated Rail Corporation (ConRail) be
ordered to reinstate Dynamoman John J. Piccarelli to his former
position with all rights unimpaired and reimbursed for all wages
lost.
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.
Claimant was discharged, after hearing, for excessive absenteeism and
excessive lateness. During a period of less then a month, he was absent on one clay
and late on nine days. Testimony at the hearing verified the absence and lateness
and revealed that the lateness had caused delays in starting Substation 3 on many
occasions. The carrier clearly supported its allegations on the record.
The claimant had been disciplined on previous occasions for excessive
absenteeism. On two occasions, the discipline assessed had been reduced by the
Carrier. There is a history of excessive absenteeism which the carrier may well
take into consideration, supported by the doctrine of progressive discipline.
Numerous Awards have supported the proposition that an employee may be
discharged for excessive absenteeism. See Award 5049 which provided:
"Nothing in the Agreement obligates the carrier to attempt to
operate its railroad with employees repeatedly unable or unwilling to
work the regular and ordinarily accepted shifts, whatever reason
or excuse exists for each absence, and even without the complication
of work for other employers. His practice, if permissible for him,
is permissible for all employees." See also Awards 7348, 7719, 7726,
7690, and 7990."
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9547
Docket No. 8747
2-CR-EW-'83
There-is nothing in the record which should cause the carrier to be lenient
to the claimant because of, for example, an exemplary, long-time record.
Claimant objects to the hearing as being improper because he did not appear
at the hearing and further that a union representative attended and participated
at the hearing, not having been designated by him.
With respect to the first objection, the claimant cannot benefit by his
failure to attend the hearing, after he had been duly notified of the time and
place of the hearing. Claimant made no attempt before or since the hearing to
explain his absence. This absence merely furthers the Carrier's concern about the
attitude of the claimant toward his employment.
With respect to the participation by the union representative at the
hearing in the absence of the claimant, while the representative may well have not
participated under these circumstances, there is nothing in the transcript of the
hearing which shows that the performance of the representative prejudiced the
position of the claimant in any way.
The agreement was not violated.
Claim is denied.
A W A R D
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By-_
Rose rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July, 1983
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division