Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9811
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9465
2-LAN-FO-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in o
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood o f Firemen & Oilers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( System Council No. 44 - AFL-CIO



Dispute: Claim of F3rtployes:














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 herein was a Service Attendant at the Carrier's Sibert Yard facility at Mobile, Alabama. On Friday, October 17, 1980 the Claimant was working the 3:00 p. m. to I1:00 p.m. shift and had been assigned along with another Service! Attendant to clean up the area around #4 Shop Track; they were observed doing so prior to their scheduled lunch period which began at 7:00 p.m. Shortly after lunch break, the Claimant was not found in his assigned area. A search was commenced in the Shop area; an agent from the Carrier's Police apartment was enlisted in the search, as well. Such effort eventually resulted in finding the Claimant purportedly asleep in a chair in a caboose. According to the Carrier, a flashlight beam was focused directly into his face for approximately five minutes before he opened his eyes and said, "Damn." This was reported
Form 1 Award No. 9811
Page 2 Docket No. 9465
2-L&N-FO-'84

to have occurred at 8:55 p.m. The Claimant apparently disavowed being asleep, but merely sitting in the caboose. To the question as to how long he had been sitting there, the Claimant purportedly replied "since 7:30 P. M.". The Claimant also asserted that he had finished his work, that he was having some on-going problems with over-medication for nerves and that the other Service Attendant knew where to find him. (The other Service Attendant disavowed the claim that the work was completed or that he knew where to locate the Claimant.)

A hearing was conducted and, as a result and considering the Claimant's prior disciplinary record, he was dismissed from service. A grievance protesting the action was filed and advanced without resolution; it comes now on appeal to this Board.

The organization contends the supervisor erred by failing to keep track of his employer, did not conduct a thorough search of the area before calling in a Special Agent and then used such individual to aid in firing the Claimant. It also contends that failure by the Carrier representatives to try to shake or awaken the Claimant shows error on its part and alleges intimidation of the Claimant. Per the Organization, the Claimant was under medication at the time.

The Board finds the Carrier's version of events is fully supported by the facts of this case and a valid basis for discipline. Termination for such infraction is not considered excessive and particularly where, as here, the Claimant's prior record is marked by the same offense as well as others.






                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. or - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March, 1984