Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10618
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10670
2-SSR-FO-185
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Seaboard System Railroad
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, as amended,
Laborer A. W. Carswell, 1. D. No. 166780, was unjustly dismissed
from service of the Seaboard System Railroad on October 14, 1983,
after a formal investigation was held in the office of Mr. R. D.
Brigman, Jr., Master Mechanic and Conducting Officer, on September
16, 1983.
2. That accordingly, Laborer A. W. Carswell be restored to his regular
assignment at Uceta Shops, Tampa, Florida, compensated for all lost
time and that he be properly restored to his rightful position,
vacation, health and welfare benefits, hospital, life and dental
insurance be paid effective October 14, 1983 and payment of 10%
interest rate be added thereto.
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 Claimant, A. W. Carswell, a laborer for the Carrier at their Uceta
Shops in Tampa, Florida, in service since September 18, 1974 was dismissed on
October 14, 1983 as a result of an investigation held on September 16, 1983.
The Claimant was charged with violating Rule 26 involving failure to protect
his assignment. On August 27, 1983, the Claimant was due to report to work
at 3:30 p.m. He did not report for work that day, and the Carrier received
no call marking him off.
The organization argues that the Carrier violated Rule 28 which called
for a fair hearing in matters such as this. They noted that the employe
became i11 on the date in question and brought in medical evidence to the
Carrier on the following day. In addition the Claimant's wife tried to mark
him off but was unsuccessful. The Claimant complied with Rule 19 which
requires that the Carrier to be notified "as early as possible." Finally, the
organization stated that past tardiness has nothing to do with this case. The
Claimant was charged with habitual tardiness, and the Claimant's tardiness in
the past has nothing to do with the absence on the date in question.
Form 1 Award No. 10618
Page 2 Docket No. 10670
2-SSR-FO-185
The Carrier argued the Claimant had many previous violations, particularly
in the area of absenteeism, and the facts show that he did not protect his
assignment on the date in question. There were three Supervisors available
until 5:00 p.m. on August 27 and none of them received a call either from the
Claimant nor from his wife. With respect to the issue of tardiness, the
Carrier points to the fact that this was indicated in the original investigation letter dated September 7, 1983.
On review of the evidence presented the Board finds that in fact the
Claimant has an extremely poor record with the Carrier. He was given
suspensions in 1978, 1980, 1981, and 1982. In addition on June 2, 1983 the
Claimant was dismissed from service for violations of the same rule with
which he is charged in this case, and he was reinstated on a last chance
basis with a suspension. We find also that the Claimant did fail to protect
his assignment on the date in question and that he was afforded a fair
hearing as provided for in Rule 28. This Board can find no reason to
mitigate the penalty imposed by the Carrier and, therefore, we will deny this
claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. e r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of October, 1985