Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award
No.
10196
SECOND DIVISION Docket
No. 10117-I
2-CR-I-SM-'85
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
( Robert M. Perrin
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Carriers System Docket CR-1686 -
"1. Unauthorized Absence: September 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 1980
and October 1, 2, 3, 6,
7,
8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, & 16, 1980.
2. Failure to return to work after receiving MD 40 qualifying you
to return to duty effective September 24, 1980."
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The significant events leading to this dispute occurred during late Fall
1980. At that time, the Claimant had contended that he was unable to report
for work because of a physical condition. However, the Carriers Doctor qualified
him to return to duty effective September 24, 1980. When he failed to report
on that date, the Carrier charged him with unauthorized absences for a series
of dates in September and October 1980 and failure to return to work. Following
a trial, he was dismissed from the service.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the complex issues and circumstances
evident in the record before it and, while we are not unaware of the Organization's
skillful questioning at the hearing, to more clearly bring forth its contention
that the Claimant was
innocent of
the charge, we find that the Carrier has
met its burden of proof. Unquestionably, there is conflicting testimony and
other elements in the record that do not lead easily to a finding of guilt.
However, if there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt,
and we find such evidence herein, it is not the role of the Board to substitute
its judgment for that of the Carrier.
Form 1 Award No. 10196
Page 2 Docket No. 10117-1
-
2-CR-I-SM-'85
Accordingly, absent a finding that the penalty assessed was arbitrary and/or
capricious, the claim is denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest.
Nancz ~VDever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of January 1985.