Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10620
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10750
2-SSR-FO-185
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Leonard K. Hall when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Seaboard System Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, Service Attendant
S. R. Jones was unjustly dismissed from service of the Seaboard
System Railroad on February 2, 1984, after a formal
investigation
was held in the office of F. L. Miracle, Assistant Master Mechanic,
and conducted by H. M. Dudley, Master Mechanic, on January 11,
1984.
2. That accordingly, S. R. Jones, Service Attendant, be restored to
his regular assignment at Corbin Shops with all seniority rights
unimpaired, vacation, health and welfare benefits, hospital, life,
and dental insurance premiums be paid and compensated for all lost
time from February 2, 1984, plus any overtime lost and the payment
of 10% interest rate 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 was employed as a Service Attendant at Corbin, Kentucky
with a regular assignment 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. A report was made by the
Claimant's Supervisor on December 29, 1983 that the Claimant did not report
for his regular assignment on that date.
The Claimant was given written notice dated December 30, 1983 to report
for formal hearing on January 11, 1984 to determine the facts and place
responsibility, if any, in connection with his failure to protect his regular
assignment on December 29, 1983; failing to report off to his Supervisor and
insubordination. Therein he was charged with violation of Rules 3, 5 and 7
of the Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department, Seaboard System
Railroad.
Form 1 Award No. 10620
Page 2 Docket No. 10750
2-SSR-FO-185
The notice informed him that he could have representation and presence
of any witnesses who had knowledge of the matter being investigated. The
notice also informed him that his personal record file would be reviewed at
the close of the hearing.
The hearing was convened as noticed. The Claimant was represented; he
had no witnesses. There were three witnesses for the Carrier, one of whom
was the Claimant's immediate Supervisor.
The Transcript of the hearing discloses that the Claimant did not report
to work for his regular shift on December 29, 1983 and that he did not contact
his Supervisor at any time to cover his absence. His Supervisor testified
that he tried twice during the shift to contact the Claimant at his home
telephone number. The Supervisor further testified that those answering the
telephone did not know where the Claimant was or anything about him.
The Claimant testified that when he reported for duty on December 30 he
told his Supervisor that he had trouble with his automobile when returning
from the City where he had visited, some 600 miles away from his home in
Corbin. He testified that the driving time is ordinarily eight and one-half
hours; that he departed at 6:00 PM, December 28 but did not arrive home until
3:30 PM on December 29. He admitted that he did not at any time try to call
in and further admitted that he should have made an extra effort to do so.
At the conclusion of the testimony, and in his presence and that of the
others at the hearing, the Claimant's personal record was reviewed and made a
part of the proceedings.
In letter dated January 11, 1984, the Claimant was notified that he was
guilty as charged and that he was dismissed from the Carrier's service
effective at 3:00 PM, February 2, 1984.
The organization contends that the Claimant was unjustly treated, did
not violate the rules as charged and that such action was absurd and uncalled
for in view of his having worked for the Carrier since June 6, 1945.
As opposed, the Carrier contends that the Claimant was afforded a fair
and impartial investigation; that the evidence of record supports the conclusion that the Claimant was guilty as charged; that the seriousness of his
offense and extensive disciplinary record fully justified dismissal.
It is plainly evident that the Claimant did not report for his assignment on time and that he made no effort to report to his Supervisor to
receive permission before the starting time to be off of his shift on
December 29, 1983.
Form 1
Pa ge 3
Award No. 10620
Locket No. 10750
2-SSR-FO-185
It is well known and equally recognized that the employer has a right to
expect its employes to report to their assignments on time. The Awards of
this Board and of this Division are replete to the extent that recitation of
the numbers is no longer necessary in upholding the right of the Carrier in
that regard. Moreover, those Awards also recognize the right of the Carrier
to establish reasonable rules governing the conduct of its employes. Such
rules exist here and were properly documented at the investigation.
The Awards of the Board and of this Division similarly hold that an
employe's service record may be properly considered in determining the
measure of discipline after a finding that discipline is warranted, based
upon the record disclosed in the Transcript of the accorded hearing.
The personal record involved here contains thirteen entries relating to
discipline, ten of which extend from March 1947 to November 21, 1978. One is
for a 60-day suspension and one is a dismissal for excessive absenteeism,
those two preceded by six prior written reprimands for absenteeism.
Starting on May 10, 1983, the Claimant received a 45-day suspension and
two disciplinary entries, the last of which was for failure to protect his
assignment on time and is dated December 20, 1983, just nine days prior to
his absence on December 29, 1983.
Our examination and consideration of all the evidence, as well as review
of the Claimant's personal record, leads us to uphold the findings of the
investigation and
of the discipline assessed. Specifically, we find that the
investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, that the Claimant
was,not unjustly treated, that he was in violation of the rules as charged
and that his dismissal was neither absurd nor uncalled for.
We are unable to find that the judgment of the Carrier or the penalty of
dismissal assessed by it was arbitrary, capricious or in any way an abuse of
managerial discretion. We will deny the claim in its entirety.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest:
4Z"
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of October, 1985