Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9730
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9185
2-CR-MA-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Josef P. Sirefman when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Aerospace Workers



DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:





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 employes 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.



Claimant Larry L. Crosby, a machinist with the Carrier since November, 1974 was served with an April 24, 1980 Notice of Investigation charging "1. Failure to report for duty on April 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 1980" and "2'. Failure to work all the hours of your position on April 7, 1980: worked 6.4 hours". A trial was held on May 30, 1980 and Claimant was subsequently dismissed from service on June 3, 1980.

Certain procedural arguments were raised for the first time at the Board level by the Organization. It would be inappropriate for the Board to consider matters not raised on the property. As Referee D. Eischen held in Second Division Award No. 7122: "It is too well understood to require documentation that we will not consider such de novo arguments which were not aired on the property"'. Also see Second Division Awards 7484 and 7853.
Form 1 Award No. 9730
Page 2 Docket No . 9185
2-CR-MA-183

In any event, the Notice of Investigation provided Claimant with sufficient particularity so as to prepare a defense. Claimant admitted in the transcript of the trial that he had been absent as charged in the Notice of Investigation. The doctor's note (signed by the doctor's secretary) proffered by Claimant does not cover two days of his absence, and as for the remaining days the note fails to indicate the nature of the illness which prompted his absences. Indeed, Claimant failed to follow the instructions in the note to report to duty on April 15th without restrictions. In sum, the absences remain unjustified, and there was substantial evidence to sustain Carrier's decision to discipline Claimant.

In determining the penalty, a review of Claimant's entire record is proper. Claimant's attendance has been very poor, especially in the months preceding the absences involved here. Prior suspensions for excessive absenteeism are part of that record. Accordingly termination was reasonable.






                            By Order of Second Division


ATTEST: -
        Nancy Nancy J. v,4V- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of December 1983.