Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10131
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9375
2-SP-MA-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement Machinist Helper E. M. Dates (hereinafter
referred to as Claimant) was improperly dismissed from the service of
the Carrier on January 18, 1980.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Claimant to
service with seniority and service rights unimpaired and with compensation
for all wage loss from date of dismissal to date of restoration to
service.
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.
Claimant was subject to an investigative hearing under charges of "alleged
dishonesty on November 19, 1979, falsification of time card, and alleged absence
without authority on November 29, 30 and December 3, 1979". The rules cited i:n
reference to these charges are as follows:
"Rule 801: Employees will not be retained in the
service who are-dishonest ...."
"Rule 810: Employees must report for duty at the
prescribed time and place, remain at their post of duty,
and devote themselves exclusively to their duties during
their tour of duty. They must not absent themselves
from the.Lr employment without proper authority.
"Continued failure by employees to protect their
employment shall be sufficient cause for dismissal."
Form 1
Pa ge 2
Award No. 10131
Locket No. 9375
2-SP-MA-'84
The Claimant failed to appear at the hearing, although he had received
proper notice thereof. The hearing officer did not grant a postponement, as
requested by the Organization, because no explanation was available as to the
reason for the Claimant's absence. Under this circumstance, the Board does not
find that the hearing officer acted improperly.
The record is persuasive that the Claimant marked his time card for eight:
hours pay for December 19, 1979, although he did not work that day and was
questioned concerning this entry by two supervisors and failed to make a change
in his pay claim.
As to his absences on November 29-30 and December 3, it appears that the
Claimant may well have advised another employee that he was leaving in the
middle of the shift on November 29. This, however, is no substitute for contacting
a supervisor directly to seek permission to leave. No justification for his
absence on the following two work days was provided.
The record of hearing demonstrated to the Carrier the Claimant's guilt of
the two charges. The Board has no basis to interfere with the subsequent disciplinary
penalty of dismissal from service.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest;
Nancy 3!~ever - Executive Secretary
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October 1984.