Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee T. Page Sharp when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
(Seaboard System Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Award No. 10769
Docket No. 10452
2-SSR-F&0-'86
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, Service
Attendant R. W. Fogle, I. D. No. 111276, was unjustly dismissed from the
service of the Seaboard System Railroad on March 8, 1983, after a formal
investigation was conducted on February 17, 1983.
2. That accordingly Service Attendant R. W. Fogle be restored to
service of the Seaboard System Railroad, Osborn Yards, Louisville, Kentucky,
and compensated for all lost time, vacation, health and welfare benefits,
hospital, life insurance and dental insurance premiums be paid, effective
March 8, 1983, and the payment of 10% interest rate be added thereto.
FINDINGS:
and all
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in
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.
this
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was a Service Attendant in the service of Carrier on
February 17, 1983. On that date an Investigation was held to look into his
conduct. He was charged with:
"You are charged with excessive absences and
tardiness. During the last four months you have
missed eleven days and reported late for work three
times as set out below:
October 2 - late
October 9 - off
October 13 - off
October 20 - late
October 26 - off
October 27 - off
October 29 - late
October 31 - off
November 17 - off
December 9 - off
December 16 - off
January 25 - off
January 26 - off
February 1 - off
Form 1 Award No. 10769
Page 2 Docket No. 10452
2-SSR-F&0-'86
You have been warned both written and verbally for
failure to protect your assignment. You have been
allowed to take fifteen days as reprimand in lieu
of an investigation in December 1979, and also,
discharged for the same offense in March 1980."
Based upon the evidence adduced at the Investigation, the Investigating
Officer found that the charges had been proved and based on this finding and
the past disciplinary record of Claimant, dismissed him from service.
At the Investigation Claimant exhibited admirable candor when
questioned about his attendance pattern. He admitted that for all but four of
the incidents he had no worthy reason for his absenteeism. Usually the
reasons put forth for his attendance problems were credited to car trouble,
wife or child sickness or Marine Reserve meetings. Some were admittedly for
insufficient reasons.
It is unfortunate when an employee has a pattern of continued
absences or lateness. Some of the reasons advanced by Claimant are legitimate
reasons. However, the Carrier expects some satisfactory level of performance
from its employees. Absence of an employee either requires a rearrangement of
the work force, a blanking of the position, or the calling in of another
employee. Each of these contingencies causes, at a minimum, some inconvenience to the Carrier and can cause loss of performance and extra cost.
Although these problems occur to the Carrier, equitable consideration for the
employee calls for consideration of his problems and some attempt by the
Carrier to encourage him to change his patterns.
The Carrier has made diligent attempts to help this Claimant overcome
his problems. Claimant admitted at the Investigation that he had been
counseled recently on his unsatisfactory attendance. The Carrier has utilized
progressive discipline. It has progressed from warnings to suspension to
discharge for the same offense. It is obvious to us that none of these
attempts has had the sought after effect.
The Carrier has the right at some point in time to make the decision
that an employee will not perform to the necessary standard of performance.
This will be true even if the employee is cursed with circumstances beyond his
control. When it comes to a rational conclusion that an employee cannot do
the job, a Carrier is justified in dismissing that employee from its work
force. This is the case here. After many unsuccessful attempts to salvage
this Claimant, the Carrier is justified in making the final determination that
it must dismiss him from employment.
Form 1 Award No. 10769
Page 3 Docket No. 10452
2-SSR-F&0-'86
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. De
~Zdf.~'
Dated at Chicago,'I'llinois, this 5th day of March 1986.