Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9822
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9706
2-CR-MA-184
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas F. Carey when award was rendered.
( International Association
of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the controlling agreement specifically Rule
6-A-3.
2. That the Carrier did not comply with their own Attendance Improvement
Program.
3. That Claimant did provide medical evidence for dates in charge.
4. That the Carrier be required to remove the five (5) day suspension
from Claimant's record.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The record shows the Claimant is a machinist with seven (7) years of service
at the Carriers Harrisburg Locomotive Terminal, Harrisburg, Pa. The Claimant,
following a trial on January 6, 1981, was assessed a five (5) days' suspension
for the following offense:
"Failing to report for duty on November 25, 1980 and December
7, 1980, which in light of your previous attendance record,
...constitutes excessive absenteeism.
The fact that the Claimant did not report for duty on November 25 and
December 7 is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that he supplied a doctor's excuse
for the November absence claiming a "knee problem." The next absence on December
7, however, became the incident that "triggered" the disciplinary action by the
Carrier on December 8 and this concerned initially and primarily the Claimant's
action on these two recent proven absences. Moreover, once those two failures to
report were established, his overall attendance record was then properly reviewed,
particularly in the determination of penalty.
Form 1 Award No. 9822
Page 2
Docket No
. 9706
, 2-CR-MA-184
That record indicates that during the period
March 2,
1980 to December 7,
1980, the Claimant had
been absent
once or twice a month, every month, The
Carrier witness also noted:
"...There seems to be a
pattern of chronic
absenteeism. The days
he
seems to miss most often is on Sundays
immediately following
his two
relief
days which is
indicative of an absenteeism
problem."
The Claimant was absent for twelve (12) days during the period in question.
Second Division Award #6710 noted:
"No employee may report when he likes or choose when to work. No
railroad can be efficiently operated for long if voluntary absences are
COndOned.0
Second Division Award #7348 found that:
"An employee may be absent from his work so much of
the time
as to
become a part time employee. Carrier is entitled to insist on
reasonable
attendance."
The charge of absenteeism on the two (2) days in question having been
established, when
coupled with the Claimant's prior pattern o f absenteeism for
the
prior nine (9) month period, warrant
the discipline
of a five (5) day
suspension. Such an
action is
found to
be reasonable and consistent with discipline
which
seeks to have
a
remedial effect
on
the Claimant's
work performance.
A
WA R D
Claim
denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of
Second
Division
Attest·
NanpTjVDever - Executive Secretary
Dated at
Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March, 1984